Orissa High Court
Bilasini Biswal & Anr vs Union Of India on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.69 of 2019
(From the award dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in OA No. 275 of 2015)
Bilasini Biswal & Anr. .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-20.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the instant Appeal, the Appellants have challenged the nil award
dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
Bench in OA No. 275 of 2015.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The appellants, being the parents of deceased Srinivas Biswal, filed a
claim application under the Railway Claims Act seeking ₹4,00,000/-
compensation on account of his death in an untoward incident.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
(ii) The case of the appellants was that on 25.11.2014, Srinivas Biswal was
travelling from Jharsuguda to Damanjodi by the Rourkela-Koraput
Express as a bona fide passenger with a valid general ticket (No.
13887905). At KM No. 326/04-08, between Therubali and Singhpur
railway stations, he accidentally fell down from the running train and
died on the spot.
(iii) The GRPS, Rayagada registered UD Case No. 36/14 and investigated.
Police, during the inquest, recorded recovery of the journey ticket from
the deceased, confirmed by inquest report, postmortem report, and
other papers.
(iv) The respondent Railways contested, alleging that though a ticket was
mentioned, it was a fabricated one, and denied both the deceased's bona
fide passenger status and the characterization of the event as an
untoward incident.
(v) Evidence led: appellants examined one witness and filed documents
including Station Superintendent's memo, inquest report, postmortem,
challan, and journey ticket. Respondents examined one witness and
relied only on the DRM report.
(vi) The Tribunal held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and
that the death did not constitute an untoward incident, thereby
dismissing the claim application in toto.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following
submissions in support of her contentions:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
(i) The Tribunal's finding that the ticket was subsequently "added" in
police papers is unsupported by pleadings or evidence from the
Railways and is based on no evidence. Police records, inquest report,
and final report all consistently record recovery of a valid journey ticket
from the deceased.
(ii) The Station Superintendent's memo and GRPS investigation confirm
the death was due to falling from a running train, making it an
untoward incident under Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the
Railways Act. The Tribunal's contrary view is unsustainable.
(iii) The investigating agency's final report, postmortem, and inquest all
conclude the death was caused by the fall, and no contrary evidence
was adduced by the Railways. Reliance solely on the DRM report,
without witnesses or substantive proof, is insufficient.
(iv) Burden of proof lies on the Railways to show the deceased was not a
bona fide passenger; the Tribunal wrongly shifted this burden on the
claimants.
(v) Section 124A of the Railways Act is a beneficial, welfare legislation.
Unless the case falls under express exceptions (suicide, self-inflicted
injury, intoxication, criminal act), the Railways' liability to compensate
is strict. None of those exceptions apply here.
(vi) Once death occurs due to an untoward incident while travelling, the
statutory liability of the Railways is automatic. The Tribunal's finding
to the contrary undermines the purpose of the legislation and wrongly
deprives dependents of compensation.
(vii) Hence, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim despite sufficient oral
and documentary evidence establishing bona fide travel and accidental
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
death. The award is unsustainable, bad in law, and fit to be set aside
with grant of compensation and interest.
III. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT:
4. The Tribunal, while dismissing the claim application, recorded the
following key observations and conclusions:
(i) The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the
deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger. It held that the
journey ticket allegedly recovered was a later insertion and not genuine,
relying on discrepancies between the inquest report and the post-
mortem challan writings.
(ii) It emphasized that at the time of inquest, no ticket was found in the
deceased's pocket, only identity documents were recovered. The court
found it "inexplicable" that the post-mortem doctor could have
discovered a ticket when none was recorded in earlier police papers.
This led to the conclusion that the ticket was fabricated and added
subsequently.
(iii) The Tribunal found no eyewitness or co-passenger testimony to
substantiate that the deceased fell from the running train. It cited the
Karnataka High Court's decision in Sulochanamma v. Union of India1
to highlight that many such claims are advanced on speculative theories
without corroborative evidence.
(iv) The Tribunal discredited the testimony of AW-1 (father of the
deceased), as he admitted he had no personal knowledge of the incident
and only heard about it from relatives. The alleged informant and GRPS
officers, who could have been material witnesses, were not examined.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.426/2013 (RCT)
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
(v) The Tribunal attached weight to the DRM's report and noted that it was
not challenged during the proceedings. It considered this report as
supporting the respondent's stand that the deceased was not a
passenger and did not fall from the train.
(vi) The medical opinion in the postmortem was interpreted against the
claimants: the Tribunal observed that the body was found in pieces,
suggesting a run-over by train, which in its view was inconsistent with
a fall from the running train. This became a key factor in rejecting the
"untoward incident" theory.
(vii) On the basis of the above findings, the Tribunal held that the Railways
were protected under Section 124 of the Railways Act, since the claim
did not fall under the definition of an "untoward incident" under
Section 123(c).
(viii) Consequently, issues 1-3 were decided against the claimants, and the
Tribunal declined to examine dependency or relief (issues 4-5). The
claim was dismissed without costs
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and meticulously analysed the
documents placed before this Court.
6. It is evident from the record that the deceased was travelling by train
and died due to a fall from the train. The Station Superintendent's
memo and the GPRS inquest report both recorded that the deceased fell
from the Rourkela-Koraput Express and died on the spot. This
occurrence squarely fits the definition of an "untoward incident" under
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, i.e. an accidental falling of a
passenger from a train.
7. The Railway Claims Tribunal, however, doubted that the incident was
a fall from the train, noting the severe injuries (dismemberment) and
speculating that the death might have been due to being run over rather
than a fall. This Court finds such a distinction misdirected. An
accidental fall from a moving train can often result in the passenger
being run over by the same train or another, causing grievous injuries.
That does not change the character of the incident as an "accidental fall"
during the course of travel. There was no evidence of any alternative
scenario, such as the deceased being on the tracks by acts unrelated to
his train journey. The contemporaneous documents, the inquest report,
post-mortem report and final police report, consistently conclude that
the death was caused by a fall from the train. Thus, on facts, the incident
must be treated as an untoward incident. Moreover, the law is clear that
such provisions must be interpreted liberally to advance their
beneficent object.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar and Ors.2 has emphasized that Section 124A, being a welfare
legislation, should not be read in a restrictive manner that would
deprive genuine victims of compensation; an accidental falling of a
passenger from a train includes falls while boarding or travelling, and
a purposive, not literal, interpretation must be adopted. The relevant
excerpts are produced below:
Appeal (civil) 6898 of 2002.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
"In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the
expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train
carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act,
we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers
from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well
known that in our country there are crores of people who
travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford
travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive
and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a
large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor
and middle-class people) from getting compensation under
the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression
"accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying
passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide passenger
i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying
to enter into a railway train and falls down during the
process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal,
interpretation should be given to the expression."
9. The next question is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
The appellants (claimants) have consistently asserted that the deceased
held a valid journey ticket (General Ticket No. 13887905 from
Jharsuguda to Damanjodi), which was recovered from his body during
the investigation. The inquest report prepared by the police on the very
day of the incident noted the recovery of this ticket from the pant pocket
of the deceased, and the Final Report of the GRPS also confirms the
same. In the face of these official records, the Tribunal's conclusion that
the ticket was a later fabrication or "planted" is entirely baseless,
notably, the Railways had not even pleaded any such theory of
subsequent insertion of a ticket, nor led evidence to that effect.
10. On the contrary, the sole witness for the Railways (RW-1, a railway
official) did not dispute the contents of the police report; the Railways
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
relied mainly on a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) enquiry report
but did not produce the author of that report for cross-examination. In
law, once the claimant shows prima facie that the passenger was
travelling (for instance, by producing a valid ticket or other evidence of
journey), the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the presumption of
bonafide travel.
11. In fact, to this effect, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v.
Rina Devi3 has clarified as follows:
"We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway
premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or
deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for
compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence
of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the
claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will
be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an
affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on
the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown
or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt
with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal
position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
12. In the present case, the evidence of the recovered ticket (supported by
AW-1's unrebutted testimony and the official records) more than
satisfies the initial burden. The Railways, for its part, failed to adduce
any cogent evidence to prove that the deceased was without a ticket or
not a bona fide passenger. Mere suggestions or an unproved internal
report cannot take the place of evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal's
finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is against the
weight of evidence and is unsustainable. On the established facts, the
deceased had a valid ticket and was a lawful passenger on the train.
AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 2362.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
13. The Tribunal placed undue emphasis on the fact that there was no
eyewitness to the fall and appeared to disbelieve the claim since no co-
passenger was examined. Such an approach is misplaced in claims
under Section 124A. By the very nature of railway accidents, especially
falls from trains, there are often no direct eyewitnesses willing or able
to testify. The absence of an eyewitness does not ipso facto negate the
claim, particularly when the surrounding circumstances and official
records strongly support the occurrence of an untoward incident.
14. In Jameela v. Union of India4, a case with similar facts, the Supreme
Court chastised the High Court for rejecting a claim on the ground of
the passenger's alleged negligence in the absence of any eyewitness
account. The Court observed that the Railways' theory that the deceased
was negligent (standing at the open door) was "entirely based on
speculation...there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the
Railway".
15. Here too, the conclusion that the deceased was not actually on the train
or that the fall did not occur is premised on speculation rather than
evidence. The official investigation on record leaves no doubt that the
death was due to a fall from the train. The so-called discrepancies
pointed out by the Tribunal (like whether the ticket was noted in the
inquest or post-mortem challan) are minor or illusory and do not
override the clear and consistent narrative of an accidental fall. The
internal DRM report relied on by the Railways, which suggested the
deceased was not a passenger, was never proved in accordance with
law. It was an ex parte report prepared for departmental purposes, and
(2010) 12 SCC 443.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
its contents were not tested by witness testimony. In the absence of any
admissible evidence contradicting the police inquiry findings, the
Tribunal ought not to have given primacy to such a report. In short,
there was no factual basis to dispute the claim that the deceased fell
from the train.
16. Section 124A of the Railways Act embodies a no-fault liability or strict
liability regime for railway accidents termed "untoward incidents."
This means that when a passenger dies or is injured in the course of a
railway operation, and it is not due to the passenger's own felonious or
suicidal act, etc., the Railways must compensate, irrespective of
negligence or wrongful act by the Railways. The provision expressly
excludes a narrow set of circumstances in which compensation can be
denied, namely, if the death or injury was caused by: (a) suicide or
attempted suicide; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) the passenger's own
criminal act; (d) any act committed by the passenger in a state of
intoxication or insanity; or (e) natural cause or disease not connected
with the journey.
17. The present case plainly does not fall under any of these exceptions.
There is no suggestion that the deceased intended to harm himself or
committed any crime, he was simply traveling on a train when the
accident happened. The Tribunal's reasoning, however, effectively
introduced a non-existent exception by blaming the victim's alleged
negligence (standing at the door or such) as a ground to deny
compensation. This approach cannot be countenanced in light of
binding precedents.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
18. Any contributory negligence by the passenger does not bar the claim,
since the statute imposes liability notwithstanding such factors. The
underlying rationale is to promptly and generously compensate victims
of rail accidents, rather than involve them in protracted fault-finding
litigation. In the case at hand, the Tribunal's denial of relief to the
claimants (aged parents of the deceased) runs counter to these
principles. Absent evidence of any excepted circumstance, the death of
a bona fide passenger due to a fall from a train obligates the Railways
to pay the statutory compensation. The findings of the Tribunal to the
contrary are perverse and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set
aside.
19. For the reasons aforestated, the impugned nil award of the Railway
Claims Tribunal is unsustainable in law and on facts. The appeal is
accordingly allowed. The judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, and it is
held that the deceased's demise was caused by an "untoward incident"
while he was a bona fide passenger. The appellants (parents of the
deceased) are therefore entitled to compensation under Section 124A of
the Railways Act. At the time of the incident (November 2014), the
statutory compensation for death was ₹4,00,000. However, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the amount has been enhanced to
₹8,00,000 by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016.
20. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent Union of India
(Railways) to pay a sum of ₹8,00,000 (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the
appellants as compensation for the death of their son. This amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
claim application till the date of payment, inasmuch as the claimants
have been kept out of this money due to the unjust denial of their
legitimate claim.
21. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.
22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/
