Orissa High Court
(An Appeal Under Section 23 Of The ... 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. 374 of 2017
(An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act,
1987.)
Amruti Nahak & Ors. .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. G.N. Rout, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. J. Pani, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-21.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Appellants, in the present appeal, have assailed the legality and
propriety of the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the learned Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 196 of 2013.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The husband of Appellant No.1 and the father of Appellant Nos.2 to
6, namely Gopal Nahak, along with his friend, first purchased a
journey ticket from Berhampur to Palasa and travelled on the D.M.U.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
Train up to Palasa Railway Station. After alighting there, they
purchased another ticket from Palasa to Kothavalasa and boarded the
train. When the train commenced its journey, due to a sudden jerk,
Gopal Nahak accidentally fell from the train at the platform of Palasa
Railway Station and sustained multiple grievous injuries on vital
parts of his body.
(ii) With the assistance of Railway personnel, the injured was shifted by
ambulance to Palasa Hospital. Owing to his critical condition, he was
thereafter referred to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh,
where he succumbed to his injuries on 03.10.2012 during the course
of treatment.
(iii) On 04.10.2012, the Palasa Government Railway Police registered U.D.
Case No. 136 of 2012 on the basis of the death message, conducted
inquest over the body, and forwarded it for post-mortem
examination. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted
the Final Report concluding that the deceased had accidentally fallen
from the DMU Train while travelling and died of the injuries
sustained in the said accident.
(iv) The appellants, being the dependent family members of the deceased,
filed Original Application No. 196 of 2013 before the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, seeking compensation for the
untoward incident. The learned Tribunal, however, held that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence did
not constitute an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and accordingly dismissed the
Original Application.
(v) Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate
the evidence and materials on record in their proper perspective and,
by proceeding on a misconception of facts, illegally dismissed the
Original Application. The impugned order is arbitrary, perverse,
vitiated by non-application of mind, and liable to be set aside.
(ii) The Appellants submitted that the evidence of the claimants, the DRM
report, the Railway Police investigation, and the RPF/PSA Diary Entry
all establish that the deceased was travelling in the DMU Train at the
relevant time and accidentally fell, sustaining fatal injuries. The fall,
therefore, constitutes an "untoward incident" entitling the appellants to
compensation. The Tribunal erred in misinterpreting the definition of
"untoward incident" under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
(iii) The Appellants contended that the accidental fall of the deceased from
the train stands admitted, and there is neither any pleading nor was any
evidence to suggest that it was self-inflicted, or the result of any criminal
act, intoxication, or insanity. Hence, the Railway cannot deny
compensation. In order to buttress this argument, reliance was placed
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors1.
(iv) The Appellants submitted that they proved their case by adducing oral
evidence regarding the purchase of a journey ticket by the deceased,
corroborated by his co-passenger examined as P.W.2, thereby
establishing his bona fide passengership in the DMU Train. This
evidence was ignored by the learned Tribunal, which illegally held that
the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and, on that basis, denied
compensation. While deciding Issues 1, 2, and 3, the Tribunal proceeded
on presumptions beyond the record, rendering the finding
unsustainable in law. The impugned judgment is thus illegal, arbitrary,
and erroneous, and liable to be set aside.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The case of the appellants does not fall within the scope of Sections
123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, as the deceased was not a
bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 2(29). No journey
ticket or travel authority was recovered from his possession. It is settled
that a claim under Section 124A can succeed only when bona fide
passengership and the occurrence of an untoward incident are both
established.
(ii) The enquiry conducted by the Railway Protection Force revealed that
the deceased, who had been suffering from cancer and had left his
(2008) 9 SCC 527.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
village with the intention of working as a labourer in a brick factory,
was travelling unauthorisedly. Constable P. R. Prasad of RPF Post,
Palasa, who escorted the injured to hospital, deposed that when he
found the victim in a conscious state, the latter admitted that he was
travelling without a ticket and had been sitting near the footboard of the
DMU Train.
(iii) None of the documents produced by the appellants establish that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger or that he died by falling from the
train. The police Final Report only proceeded on a presumption and
was unsupported by any eyewitness account. In fact, P.W.2 gave no
evidence about the deceased's journey, and the alleged co-passenger
was neither named in the Original Application nor mentioned in the
police report.
(iv) In these circumstances, the appellants' case amounts to a false and
fabricated attempt to portray the occurrence as an untoward incident.
The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts, and its findings are legal,
just, and in accordance with the Act. Extending compensation in such a
situation would virtually endorse unauthorised travel and encourage
similar claims. The impugned judgment is therefore well-founded and
calls for no interference.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR
5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, upon hearing the
parties and perusing the record, framed five issues, namely whether the
deceased died due to an accidental fall within the meaning of Section
123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, whether he was a bona fide
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
passenger, whether the Railways were protected under Section 124A,
whether the applicants were the dependents of the deceased, and to
what relief, if any, they were entitled.
6. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimants
had not produced any journey ticket or examined the alleged co-
passenger to establish the deceased's travel.
7. The affidavit evidence of the widow was found insufficient as she
admitted she was not an eyewitness and further stated that her husband
had been suffering from cancer for several years.
8. The DRM's inquiry recorded that the deceased was travelling without
authority, and the Final Report of the GRP suggested he was working
as a coolie at Palasa Railway Station.
9. In this backdrop, the Tribunal concluded that the injuries were not
established to have resulted from an accidental fall but were attributable
to negligence or self-inflicted causes. It therefore held that the deceased
was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident did not qualify as
an "untoward incident" under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the
Railways Act, 1989.
10. While acknowledging that Section 124A is a beneficial provision, the
Tribunal observed that extending compensation to unauthorised
persons would legitimise irregular practices and encourage further
misuse. On these findings, the claim application was dismissed.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
12. The liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation is
governed by Sections 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Section
124 deals with accidents such as collisions, derailments, or other
accidents to trains carrying passengers. Section 124A provides for
compensation in cases of "untoward incidents," a term defined in
Section 123(c) to include, inter alia, the accidental falling of a passenger
from a train carrying passengers.
13. Both provisions embody a regime of strict or no-fault liability.
Compensation is payable irrespective of fault or negligence on the part
of the Railway Administration, subject only to the narrow exceptions
contained in the proviso to Section 124A, namely suicide or attempted
suicide, self-inflicted injury, a criminal act, intoxication or insanity, or
natural causes or disease.
14. The legal position in this regard is well settled. In Prabhakaran (supra),
the Supreme Court held that claims under Section 124A proceed on no-
fault liability; questions of negligence or contributory negligence are
irrelevant once the occurrence is an "untoward incident."
15. In Jameela v. Union of India2, it was reiterated that even if the
passenger's own negligence contributed to the fall, compensation
cannot be denied unless the case is brought within a statutory exception.
16. In Union of India v. Rina Devi3, the Supreme Court clarified that "self-
inflicted injury" under proviso (b) presupposes a deliberate intention to
cause harm to oneself, and mere negligence does not suffice.
2010 12 SCC 443.
2019 3 SCC 572.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
17. A principal contention advanced by the Railways is the non-recovery of
a journey ticket, contending that the deceased was therefore not a "bona
fide passenger" within the meaning of Section 2(29). It is, however,
significant to notice the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme
Court in Rina Devi (supra), wherein it was categorically held that bona
fide passengership may be established on the basis of oral or
circumstantial evidence even in the absence of a recovered ticket. The
Court recognised that tickets are frequently lost or destroyed in the
course of an accident, during removal of the injured to hospital, or while
in police custody.
18. Turning to the specific facts of the present case, the claimants' case is
that the deceased, Gopal Nahak, purchased tickets and travelled with a
co-passenger from Berhampur to Palasa and then from Palasa to
Kothavalasa. When the train commenced movement at Palasa, a sudden
jerk caused him to fall, resulting in grievous injuries. He was first taken
to Palasa Hospital and thereafter to RIMS, Srikakulam, where he
succumbed on 03.10.2012.
19. The Palasa GRP registered U.D. Case No. 136 of 2012, conducted
inquest, forwarded the body for post-mortem, and in the Final Report
concluded that the deceased fell from the DMU passenger train and
died due to the injuries sustained. Hospital records and other
contemporaneous public documents are consistent with this narrative.
20. The claimants led oral evidence, including that of a co-passenger
(P.W.2), regarding purchase of tickets and the journey undertaken. This
evidence, read with the FIR/death message, inquest, post-mortem and
hospital records, discharges the initial burden on the claimants to show
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
that the deceased was travelling by a passenger train and that his death
was the result of an accidental fall, which constitutes an 'untoward
incident' within Section 123(c)(2).
21. The burden then shifted to the Railways to disprove bona fide
passengership or to bring the case within one of the provisos to Section
124A.
22. The Railways rely on the DRM/RPF enquiry narrative that no ticket was
found and that the deceased may have been engaged in coolie work at
Palasa, together with a constable's assertion that the injured admitted
he had no ticket and was sitting near the footboard. This material does
not meet the requisite standard, being speculative and uncorroborated
by independent evidence, and is outweighed by the consistent public
records of the GRP, the inquest and post-mortem, and the hospital
papers.
23. Even if the deceased was near the footboard, that circumstance at most
indicates negligence. Under the ratio in Rina Devi (supra), negligence
does not translate into 'self-inflicted injury.' There is no case of suicide,
attempted suicide, intoxication, criminal act, or natural causes. None of
the statutory exceptions is attracted.
24. As regards non-recovery of a ticket, this Court reiterates that the
statutory definition of 'passenger' must be applied with the evidentiary
flexibility recognised by the Supreme Court. In the present case,
credible oral evidence of the co-passenger is corroborated by public
records such as the GRP Final Report, the inquest, the post-mortem and
the hospital records, which establish that the deceased was travelling
on a passenger train and fell therefrom. The absence of a recovered
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
ticket is therefore not decisive. The Railways have failed to disprove
bona fide passengership with any cogent evidence of ticketless travel.
25. On the totality of the material, this Court is satisfied that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger, that his death occurred in the course of an
accidental fall from a train carrying passengers, and that the occurrence
constitutes an 'untoward incident' within Section 123(c)(2) read with
Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The view taken by the Tribunal,
resting on conjecture, a rigid insistence on ticket production, and an
incorrect application of the statutory exceptions, cannot be sustained
and is accordingly set aside.
VI. CONCLUSION:
26. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. The death of
Gopal Nahak is held to have occurred in the course of an 'untoward
incident' within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,
1989, entitling the appellants to compensation under Section 124A.
27. The appellants are entitled to statutory compensation of ₹8,00,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal
until realisation. The respondent Railways shall deposit the amount
before the Tribunal within twelve weeks, whereupon it shall be
disbursed to the appellants in accordance with law.
28. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/
