Rashmi Swargiary & Ors vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 3554 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rashmi Swargiary & Ors vs Union Of India on 17 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                                                          Signature Not Verified
                                                                          Digitally Signed
                                                                          Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                          Reason: Authentication
                                                                          Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
                                                                          CUTTACK
                                                                          Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  F.A.O No.205 of 2021

          (In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
          Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).

          Rashmi Swargiary & Ors.                     ....                Appellant(s)
                                           -versus-
          Union of India                              ....              Respondent(s)
        Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

          For Appellant (s)           :                    Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv.

          For Respondent (s)          :                     Ms. Sulochana Patra, CGC.


                    CORAM:
                    DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                       DATE OF HEARING:-21.01.2026
                       DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.04.2026
        Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and

order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for brevity) in

O.A.(IIU)/284/2017 dismissing their claim application for

compensation arising out of the death alleged to have occurred in an

'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 124A of the

Railways Act, 1989.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Page 1

(i) On 08.07.2017 while the deceased was travelling from Guwahati

to Bangaluru Passenger train No.18477 (Puri-Haridwar Kalinga

Utkal Express) as a bona fide passenger accidentally fell down

from the said train at Platform No.1 of Puri Railway Station and

died on the spot.

(ii) The GRPS/Khurda registered UD Case No. 49 dated 11.07.2017

and took up an investigation in the matter. The applicants in the

O.A. have averred that the deceased's journey ticket was lost

during the incident. In order to compensate for the death of the

deceased in an untoward incident, the applicants have prayed

the Tribunal for an award of Rs. 8,00,000/-.

(iii) On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal concluded that the

victim died due to his own negligence and was not a bona fide

passenger. The claim application was, accordingly, dismissed.

(iv) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.01.2021

passed in O.A(IIU)/284/2017 by the Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar bench, the Appellants preferred this 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 questions arise for consideration are: (i) whether the

deceased was a bona fide passenger? and (ii) whether the

Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by reason of

any of the exceptions under Section 124A?

Page 2

(ii) The Tribunal returned a findings that the deceased was found

lying on the railway track with severance of body parts and

there is no clarity or certainty regarding the journey of the

deceased undertaken by any specific train.

(iii) Section 124A of the Railways Act enacts a regime of strict

liability. Once it is established that death or injury has occurred

as a result of an 'untoward incident,' the Railway

Administration is bound to pay compensation, unless the case

falls within the narrowly defined exceptions of suicide, self-

inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural cause.

Negligence, even gross negligence, is not among these

exceptions.

(iv) In the present case, the Tribunal has duly held that the accident

has occurred as a result of 'untoward incident' as defined under

Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, yet in a whimsical fashion,

the Tribunal has denied compensation to the appellants.

(v) The deceased had a valid general class superfast ticket bearing

No.G92651453, valid from Guwahati to Bangaluru. The said fact

has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while deciding

issues and passed the impugned order based on the DRM

report, which was prepared much after the accident and after

filing of the claim application.

(vi) The Appellants adduced oral evidence as well as police reports

which suggested that the deceased died due to falling from the

Page 3

running train while travelling as a bona fide passenger. On the

other hand, the DRM report was prepared by the agent/officer

of the respondent, much after the accident.

(vii) In Union of India v. Rina Devi1 -, wherein the Supreme Court

recognised that in train accident cases, tickets are frequently

lost, misplaced, or destroyed during the incident or subsequent

medical treatment. It was held that bona fide passenger status

may be established by circumstantial or oral evidence, and non-

recovery of a ticket cannot by itself be fatal to a claim.

(viii) There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased died

due to his own fault, or that he was in a state of intoxication or

insane.

(ix) The Respondent did not adduce any cogent material to rebut

this vidence, apart from speculative statements in the DRM's

inquiry.

(x) The learned Tribunal has technically dismissed the claim

application by making a third case. There is nothing on record

either to suggest or to prove that there was negligence or

absence of prudence on the part of the deceased.

(xi) In view of the above, the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2021

passed in OA(IIU)/284/2017may set aside, as the same is not

sustainable in the eyes of law and further he pleased to direct

the Respondent to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- towards

(2018) 3 SCC 319

Page 4

compensation along with 12% interest per annum form the date

of application.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

4. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent made the

following submissions:

(i) The deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as no journey

ticket was recovered from his possession at the time of inquest.

The alleged incident therefore does not fall within the definition

of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways

Act, 1989.

(ii) It is contended that the Appellants have failed to satisfactorily

discharge this primary onus. The surrounding circumstances,

when objectively assessed in the light of the available record, do

not lend credence to the theory of an accidental fall from a

running train; rather they un mistakably point towards a self-

inflicted act.

(iii) The Appellant No.1, wife of the deceased, examined herself as

A.W.1. But, she is not a eye witnesses of the incident and she has

no knowledge about the incident.

(iv) The death of the deceased cannot be termed an untoward

incident as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act. The

death of the deceased comes under Section 124(A) of the

Railway Act that no compensation shall be payable under this

section by the railway administration.

Page 5

(v) The Appellants have not proved the negligence of the

Respondent for the death of the deceased, which occurred on

11.07.2017. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The

appellants have not proved their case by producing any

eyewitnesses, which is essential required for established their

case.

(vi) There is no illegality and committed while passing the

impugned judgement passed by the learned Railway Claims

Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.

(vii) There is no illegality and committed any error while passing the

impugned judgment passed by the learned Railway Claims

Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:

5. Upon considering the materials placed on record, the learned Tribunal

framed five issues for adjudication and proceeded to decide the same

upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by

both parties.

6. The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the

deceased was not established to be bona fide passenger.

7. The deceased was found lying on the railway track with severance of

body parts, and there is no clarity or certainty regarding the journey

of the deceased undertaken by any specific train. The Applicants have

failed to discharge the burden lying upon them to establish that the

deceased was a bona fide passenger and a victim of an untoward

incident as has been defined under section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Page 6

Act 1989. It does appear from all circumstantial evidence that the

death may have arisen due to reasons that are covered in exceptions

(a) to (c) of Sec 124-A of the Indian Railways Act. Therefore,

applicants are not entitled to any compensation from the railway

administration for such a death that was caused otherwise.

8. In view of the above findings, the learned Tribunal dismissed the

claim application, holding that the Railway Administration was not

liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased. No order as

to costs was made.

V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

9. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the materials on

record.

(i) At the heart of the present appeal lies a stark and narrow

controversy: whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and

whether his death was the result of an "untoward incident" within

the statutory framework of Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the

Railways Act, 1989. These twin questions, though seemingly

straightforward, have been clouded by conjecture and

misappreciation at the level of the Tribunal.

(ii) The legislative intent behind Section 124A is neither obscure nor

elastic, it establishes a regime of strict liability, designed to ensure

swift and certain compensation to victims of railway accidents.

Fault, negligence, or inadvertence, however graveare immaterial.

The Railway Administration can escape liability only by bringing

the case squarely within the narrow statutory exceptions such as Page 7

suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal conduct, intoxication, or

natural causes. Outside these clearly demarcated boundaries, the

law admits of no evasion.

(iii) What is striking in the present case is the Tribunal's internally

inconsistent reasoning. On one hand, it acknowledges that the

death occurred on a railway track in circumstances suggestive of a

fall from a running train which is an archetypal "untoward

incident." Yet, on the other, it denies compensation by speculating

that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the case

might fall within the statutory exceptions. This duality of

reasoning, resting more on suspicion than substance, cannot

withstand judicial scrutiny.

(iv) The Tribunal's insistence on the physical recovery of a journey

ticket as the sole litmus test of bona fide travel betrays a rigid and

outdated approach. Judicial precedent has long moved beyond

such formalism. The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Rina

Devi(supra) has recognised the lived realities of railway accidents

wherein it is often found that tickets are often lost, destroyed, or

rendered irretrievable in the chaos of such incidents. To elevate

non-recovery of a ticket into a determinative factor is to ignore both

human experience and settled law. In the present case, the

consistent plea of the Appellants that the deceased possessed a

valid ticket, though lost in the incident, remains un-rebutted in any

meaningful sense.

Page 8

(v) The evidentiary balance further tilts in favour of the Appellants.

The oral testimony of A.W.1, read alongside the contemporaneous

police records, including the U.D. case, paints a coherent and

credible narrative of an accidental fall from a moving train. In

contrast, the Respondent leans heavily on the DRM report which is

an internal document prepared post facto, after the claim had

already been set in motion. Such a report, absent independent

corroboration, cannot displace primary evidence or override

contemporaneous records.

(vi) Equally telling is the absence of any concrete material to

substantiate the Respondent's plea that the death was self-inflicted

or otherwise falls within the statutory exceptions. These assertions

remain in the realm of conjecture, unsupported by evidence. There

is nothing on record to suggest intoxication, criminal conduct, or

deliberate self-harm. In such a vacuum, the law leans decisively in

favour of the claimants.

(vii) This Court must also record its disquiet at the Tribunal's

approach in effectively constructing a third narrative which is one

neither pleaded nor proved by either party by invoking speculative

exceptions to deny compensation. Adjudication cannot proceed on

conjectures and surmises; it must be based on evidence and guided

by settled legal principles, particularly when dealing with a

beneficial statute which is involved in the present case and

intended to provide social security and relief.

Page 9

(viii) On a holistic appraisal, the conclusion becomes inescapable: the

deceased was indeed a bona fide passenger, and his death was the

direct consequence of an untoward incident as defined under the

Railways Act. The case does not fall within any of the statutory

exceptions that would absolve the Railway Administration of

liability.

(ix) The impugned judgment dated 07.01.2021, therefore, cannot be

sustained. It stands vitiated by misapplication of law and

misreading of evidence. The Appellants, having established their

claim, are entitled to compensation in accordance with law.

VI. CONCLUSION:

10.In the final analysis, this Court finds that the impugned judgment of

the Railway Claims Tribunal is unsustainable both in law and on facts.

The Tribunal has erred in adopting a narrow and speculative

approach, overlooking the settled principles governing claims under

the Railways Act, particularly the doctrine of strict liability embodied

in Section 124A

11.The materials placed on record, when viewed in their proper

perspective, clearly establish that the deceased was a bona fide

passenger and that his death occurred in an untoward incident arising

out of an accidental fall from a running train. The Respondent has

failed to bring the case within any of the statutory exceptions so as to

escape liability

Page 10

12.The denial of compensation by the Tribunal, purely based on

conjecture and hyper-technical reasoning, defeats the very object of

the beneficial legislation intended to provide solace and financial

relief to victims and their families. Such an approach cannot be

countenanced.

13.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds being allowed. The impugned

judgment dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar in O.A.(IIU)/284/2017 is hereby set aside. The

Appellants are held entitled to compensation as per law.

14.The Respondent-Railway Administration is directed to pay a sum of

₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the Appellants towards

compensation, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from

the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual

payment. The aforesaid amount shall be disbursed within a period of

eight weeks from the date of this judgment.

15.The Tribunal is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount to the

Appellants proportionately by way of account transfer or cheque and

the rest of the amount to be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit

account for a period of three years or subject to the order of the

Tribunal.

16.There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th April, 2026/ Page 11