[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Godabari Parida vs Union Of India on 6 February, 2026

Author: B.P. Routray

Bench: B.P. Routray

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                               FAO No.14 of 2022
                     (From the judgment and award dated 27th September 2021 passed by
                     the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in Case No.OA-
                     IIU/85/2018)

                     Godabari Parida                                ...     Appellant

                                                         -versus-


                     Union of India                                 ...     Respondent

                     Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

                                   For Appellant          : Ms.D.Mohapatra, Advocate

                                   For Respondent         : Mr.S.M.Pattanayak, CGC


                                       CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY


                                                     JUDGMENT

th 6 February, 2026

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Present appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment

and award dated 27th September 2021 passed by Railway Claims

Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in Case No.OA-IIU/85/2018, wherein

the prayer of the Appellant (claimant) for compensation of death of

his wife, namely, Goli Parida arising out of Railway accident, has

been refused.

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04

2. Heard Ms.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant and

Mr. Pattanayak, learned Central Government Counsel for the

Respondent-Union of India.

3. The case of the claimant is that her wife, namely, Goli Parida

while travelling in Berhampur-Bhubaneswar DMU passenger Train

No.58412 from Huma to Balugaon Railway Station on 28th January

2018, she accidently fell down at Balugaon Railway Station and died.

4. The claim application was filed on 7th May 2018. Railways

Authorities have denied the claim of Appellant and according to them,

the deceased while trespassing the railway track at the time of incident

on 28th January 2018 was hit by DMJ-BTAP, a goods train at KM

No.525/4-5 and died. As per the report prepared by DRM, the On-

duty Gate Keeper reported the matter to the Senior Superintendent of

Balugaon Railway Station on 28th January 2018 that two women, aged

about 55 years, while trace-passing the railway track illegally, were

dashed by the Goods train and died. So, according to the contentions

of Railways, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation since

the deceased was neither a valid passenger of the train nor did she die

due to any fault on the part of the Railway.

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04

5. Admittedly, the claimant has examined himself as AW 1 and

two other witnesses as AW 2 and 3 in support of his case. He further

adduced the inquest report, postmortem examination report and the

identity proof of the deceased before the Tribunal. The respondent-

Railways on the other hand examined one witness as RW 1, who is a

RPF personnel, and adduced the copy of the FIR and other police

papers as well as the DRM's statutory report.

6. The dead body of the deceased was found at KM No.525/4-5 in

Balugaon Railway Station yard as mentioned in the inquest report.

She was found sustaining with several bodily injuries consistent with

the railway accident according to the postmortem examination report.

7. As per the postmortem examination report, the deceased died

due to shock and hemorrhage and all such injuries found on the body

are consistent with falling track accident. It needs to be stated here

that on 28th January 2018, Khorda GRPS U.D.Case No.07/2018 was

registered on the report of death of the deceased and the dead body

was found lying between Track No.3 & 2 at Balugaon Railway

Station.

8. The eyewitness Viz. AW 3 says in his evidence that, while he

was also a passenger in the same train at the same time, saw the

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04

deceased accidentally falling from the running train before the

stopping point of the train at Balugaon Railway Station due to sudden

jerk and push of co-passengers. This evidence of AW 3 could not be

rebutted in his cross-examination and on the other hand, the Railways

have examined their sole witness as RW 1, a RPF personnel, who

does not have any direct knowledge about the incident. Said RW 1 is

the person who conducted inquiry on behalf of RPF regarding the

accident. It is thus seen that when the statement of AW 3 is

corroborating to the medical evidence, no direct evidence has been

produced from the side of the Railways either to rebut or to contradict

the evidence of AW 3 in any manner.

9. The finding of the Tribunal is entirely based on the enquiry

report prepared by DRM without any reference to the evidences

adduced on record. It is true that statutory inquiry report prepared by

the DRM carries the statutory presumption under Section 191 of the

Railways Act. But such presumption attached to the report of the

DRM is subject to the evidence produced on record in a claim case for

compensation. When the direct evidence is speaking about the cause

and nature of the accident, the same has to prevail over the finding

given in the report of the DRM subject to production of rebuttal

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04

evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

vs- Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 has observed as follows:

"mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the 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".

10. The untoward incident as defined in Section 123 of the Railways Act reads as follows:

"(c) "untoward incident" means--

(1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room14 or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04

11. It is true that no valid ticket could be produced on behalf of the

claimant to satisfy the requirement of the journey of the Petitioner in

the train in question at the time of accident. But the same cannot be

the sole determining factor for grant of compensation or to opine that

the death is not coming under the definition of untoward. As seen

from the given facts of the present case, the consistent statements and

evidence of the claimant, supported with police papers, that the

deceased died due to accidental fall from the running train without her

fault. When no suspicious material is brought on record contrary to

such evidence adduced by the claimant and the Railways have failed