Orissa High Court
Claims Tribunal Act vs Union Of India on 14 November, 2025
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: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O No. 59 of 2022
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Jhudhistira Sethy .... 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. J.B. Mohanty, CGC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-07.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenge the judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for brevity) in O.A.(IIU) No. 177 of 2018 dismissing her claim application for compensation arising out of the injury 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 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00
(i) On 01.06.2018 , the injured in person, Jhudhistira Sethy, a bona fide passenger, was travelling from Kurla to Karjat Railway Station by a Local Train, due to push and pull of co-passengers, he lost his balance and accidentally fell in between Kalyan and Thakurli Railway Station, as a result he sustained fatal injuries
(ii) The Police, during the inquest recorded cause of death of the deceased to be fall down from running train, confirmed by final report, post-mortem report and other papers.
(iii) The appellants, thereafter, instituted Original Application No. 177 of 2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989, on account of the injury sustained by the Appellant, resulting from the "untoward incident".
(iv) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed five issues for adjudication, and upon detailed examination, concluded that the Appellant was not a bona fide passenger and not a victim of any untoward incident. The claim application was, accordingly, dismissed.
(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.12.20121 passed in O.A. No. 177 of 2018 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar bench, the Appellant preferred this appeal. Page 2 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, dismissing the Original Application in respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the injury of the Appellant is erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record, and suffers from gross misappreciation of material facts and legal provisions.
(ii) The Appellants contended that the documentary evidence issued by the Police Authorities unequivocally establishes that the Appellant had sustained injuries as a consequence of an untoward incident. It was argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate or to take judicial notice of these vital and corroborative evidentiary materials, which lent credence to the Appellant's case. The rejection of the claim on the ground that the injuries were self-
inflicted and thus fell within the exceptions enumerated under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, was asserted to be erroneous, perverse and unsustainable in law.
(iii) Section 124A of the Railways Act, being a beneficial and welfare legislation imposes a strict and statutory liability on the Railways to compensate the Appellants, unless the case falls within the express statutory exceptions, none of which are applicable here. Once the injuries results from an untoward incident occurring in Page 3 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00 the course of railway travel, the liability of the Railways to pay compensation arises ipso facto and automatically.
(iv) Upon weighing the evidence, it is submitted that the applicants have produced sufficient materials to establish that the Appellant was travelling from Kurla to Karjat Railway Station, and fell from the running train, sustained injuries. The absence of ticket recovery, or any allegation of criminal negligence, does not undermine the claim within the ambit of Section 124A. The incident squarely falls within the definition of an 'untoward incident', and none of the statutory exceptions are attracted.
(v) The Appellants further contended that the injured was immediately shifted to Sai Hospital by the local police, where he received preliminary medical treatment. He was thereafter referred to KEM Hospital, Mumbai for further management, where he was admitted as an indoor patient. Owing to the grievous crush injuries sustained to his of his left hand and left leg, extensive treatment became necessary.
(vi) In view of the above, he contended that the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2021 passed in O.A. No. 177 of 2018 by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar bench, Bhubaneswar may be set aside, as the same is not sustainable in law. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the following submissions:Page 4 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00
(i) In cases arising out of "untoward incidents", the initial evidentiary burden indisputably rests upon the claimant. In the present matter, the Appellants has failed to satisfactorily discharge this burden. From the circumstances surrounding the alleged injury, it does not appear to be a case of accidental fall from a running train but indicates a self-inflicted injury. Such conduct falls within the exceptions contemplated under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the Respondents.
(ii) A meticulous scrutiny of the contemporaneous documentary corpus and the surrounding factual matrix militates against the hypothesis of an accidental fall from a moving train, and contrarily, yields a preponderant inference of a self-inflicted injury. Such conduct, being ex facie subsumed within the exclusionary ambit of the proviso to Section 124A, is statutorily immunized from the operation of the rule of strict liability that otherwise attaches under the main provision.
(iii) Upon a reasoned appreciation of the evidentiary record, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the testimony of the Appellant and concluded that the injuries sustained were the consequence of his own rash and negligent conduct. It was observed that the Appellant had been travelling in a Local Train and, having failed to enter the compartment, had undertaken the journey in a standing position near the doorway. The occurrence being a direct Page 5 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00 consequence of the Appellant's own fault and criminal negligence, the Respondents- Railways cannot be held liable for the same.
(iv) The Respondents have further urged, with persuasive force, that there was no contemporaneous record or report of Alarm Chain Pulling following the alleged fall , which circumstance materially undermines the Appellant's narrative and casts serious doubt upon the authenticity of the claim. In the absence of any cogent, credible, or corroborative evidence establishing bona fide passengership, the indispensable precondition for the invocation of statutory liability under Section 124A Railways Act, 1989, remains unfulfilled. The claim, thus bereft of the requisite factual and legal foundation, stands rendered unsustainable and non-
maintainable within the statutory framework, as the sine qua non for attracting the principle of strict liability is conspicuously absent.
(i) The Appellant has failed to discharge the essential burden of establishing that he was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket at the time of the alleged incident. So, the statutory liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 remains unfulfilled. Consequently, the claim application is rendered untenable in law and not maintainable. IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:
5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench heard the parties, perused the documents on record, and upon the basis of the pleadings framed five issues for consideration.Page 6 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00
6. The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the Appellant was not established to be bona fide passenger. It found that the journey ticket was not recovered. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim could not be sustained in the absence of proof of lawful ravel by the deceased.
7. The Tribunal further stated that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were attributable to his own rash and negligent conduct. It was observed that the Appellant had been travelling in a standing position near the doorway, an act which is inherently unsafe, impermissible, and fraught with danger. The Tribunal concluded that the occurrence was the direct and proximate consequence of the Appellant's own fault and criminal negligence, thereby disentitling him to any compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
8. The Tribunal held that such circumstances of the case clearly indicated that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were self-inflicted, and not the result of an accidental fall from the train.
9. Consequently, the occurrence did not constitute an "untoward incident" within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal observed that the sine qua non for invoking Section 124A, namely, proof of an untoward incident during the course of a bona fide journey, had not been established. It was therefore concluded that the injury was attributed to the Appellant's Page 7 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00 own fault, and the Railways stood protected under the exception clause Section 124A of the Act.
10.Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were answered against the applicants. In view of such findings, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to examine Issues 4 and 5 relating to dependency and relief. The claim application was thus dismissed.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
11. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
12.The central questions that arise for consideration are:
(a) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
(b) Whether the incident amounts to an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 123)(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989?
(c) Whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by reason of any exceptions under Section 124A?
A. Legal Position: Liability under Section 124-A
(i) Section 124-A embodies a regime of no-fault liability, under which, once it is established that the death or injury resulted from an "untoward incident", the entitlement to compensation follows as a statutory consequence, irrespective of any negligence or default on the part of the Railway Administration. The liability is excluded only in the limited contingencies contemplated in the proviso (suicide or attempted suicide, self- Page 8 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00 inflicted injury, the victim's own criminal act, intoxication or insanity and injury arising from natural causes or disease). The legislative scheme thus consciously shifts the focus from attributing fault to establishing causation
(ii) The Supreme Court has consistently held that an accidental fall from a train squarely constitutes an "untoward incident". It has further clarified that recovery of a journey ticket is not a sine qua non where the surrounding circumstances reasonably probabilise that the passenger was travelling by train. Once the claimant establishes a credible foundational case, the burden shifted to the Railways to demonstrate that the occurrence falls within one of the excepted categories enumerated in the proviso to Section 124.
(iii) This legal position has been reiterated in a catena of decisions, particularly in Union of India v. Rina Devi1, wherein it was observed that:
"29. 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 (2019) 3 SCC 572 1 Page 9 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00 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."
The Tribunal is therefore required to adopt a pragmatic and victim- centric approach, in consequence with the beneficial object of the statute.
B. Bona fide passenger: standard and burden
(i) The Tribunal insisted proof "beyond doubt" of travel by a particular train and of the possession of a valid ticket. Such a standard is legally untenable. Proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal are summary and compensatory in nature, not criminal and the appropriate test is that of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(ii) The record discloses that (a) the police promptly registered the case and the inquest papers specifically refers to a railway fall,
(b) the Appellant was travelling in the local train while standing near the doorway, and after he falling from the alleged train, he was immediately shifted to Sai Hospital by the local police, where he received preliminary medical treatment; and (c) he was thereafter referred to KEM Hospital, Mumbai for further management, where he was admitted as an indoor patient. In view of the grievous crush injuries sustained to his of his left hand and left leg, extensive treatment became indispensable, Page 10 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00 they give rise to a credible presumption that the Appellant was travelling by train at the time he fell.
(iii) Similar sentiments have also been echoed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others v. Union of India and Others2, whereunder it has been held that:
"9............................... By the explanation of the said section classifying about "passenger", it would include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
10. This Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi3, has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises.
"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railways 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 relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on facts shown or attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with form case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
(2023) 19 SCC 116 2 3 (2019) 3 SCC 572 Page 11 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00
(iv) In the present case, while it is undisputed that the Appellants were able to produce the medical report unequivocally recorded that the Appellant suffered injuries due to the accidental fall from a running train, thereby sustaining the occurrence as an untoward incident. In contrast, the Respondents failed to bring on record any cogent or rebuttal evidence to disprove the claim and instead relied upon speculative and inconclusive observations made in the DRM inquiry report, which does not carry binding evidentiary value in judicial proceedings. C. Untoward incident
(i) The Tribunal faulted the Appellant for not examining co-
passengers. However, such an omission is not fatal in a summary compensation regime, particularly when the contemporaneous official records consistently point towards a railway fall. The law does not require flawless evidence; it mnadates a credible preponderance of probability. The police papers, medical reports, coupled with the nature of the injuries recorded therein, provide a sufficient foundation to infer an accidental fall, especially in the absence of any plea pr proof suggesting suicide, intoxication, insanity, or any element of mens rea constituting a "criminal act" on the part of the victim.
(ii) The Court observed that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 creates a no-fault liability on the part of the Railway Administration in cases where death and injury occurs due to an Page 12 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00 "untoward incident." unless the case falls within one of the enumerated exceptions. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar4, held that "........11. it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers", the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretation and not a narrow and technical one".
(iii) The Act compensates the incident, not the claimant's precision in train nomenclature. On a calibrated appraisal, this Court conclude as follow:
(a) The Appellant have established, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that the injured was a bona fide passenger who accidentally fell from a running train on 01.06.2018 in between Kalyan and Thakurli Railway Station.
The occurrence squarely constitutes an "untoward incident"
within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act.
(b) The Railways, on the other hand, have failed to discharge the statutory burden of bringing the case within any (2008) 9 SCC 527 4 Page 13 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00 exceptions enumerated under Section 124-A. The Tribunal's dismissal of the claim, predicated upon rigid evidentiary exceptions and conjectural suspicion, stands in derogation of the benevolent object of the legislation and the settled principles governing its interpretation.
D. Discharging liability with regard to awarded amount:
(i) This Court found that the award rendered by the Learned Tribunal is not in consonance with the governing legal principles or the applicable statutory framework.
(ii) In the present case, the disability certificate issued on affidavit by the Appellant by the Issuing Medical Authority, Ganjam, Odisha, records that the claimant sustained grievous injuries to his left leg. The medical evidence on record further establishes that he has suffered a permanent physical disability assessed at 40%, along with amputation of the left thumb through proximal phalanx, index, middle and ring finger through metacarpophalangeal joint.
(iii) Upon calibrated appraisal of the materials on record, this Court holds that he is entitled to compensation in terms of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. Under Part-III(7) of the schedule he is entitled to the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- for loss of four fingers of one hand.
Additionally, for the permanent physical disability assessed at 40%, he is entitled to Rs. 1,60,000/- as prescribed under the Page 14 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00 Schedule. Accordingly, the total amount payable to the Appellant comes to Rs. 5,60,000 (Five Lakhs Sixty Thousand).
13. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that, notwithstanding certain minor discrepancies in the evidentiary record, a judicious and balanced evaluation of the material unmistakably tilts the scale in favour of the Appellant. The case set up by the Appellant rests on a firmer legal foundation, whereas the Railway Administration has failed to discharge the evidentiary burden incumbent upon it to bring the occurrence within any of the statutory exceptions enumerated under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. While the Appellant have satisfactorily discharged their initial burden, the corresponding onus that thereafter shifted to the Railway Administration has remained wholly unfulfilled. VI. CONCLUSION:
14. In view of the forgoing analysis and the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment dated 24.12.2021passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 177of 2018 cannot be sustained in law and hereby set aside. It is accordingly declared that theAppellant, met his death in an "untoward incident" within the meaning and contemplation of Section 124A of the Act, and the deceased was a bona fide passenger entitled to the protection and benefits envisaged under the said statutory provision.
Page 15 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:09:00
15. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
16. The Railway Administration is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- (Rupees five lakhs sixty thousand) to the Appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of actual payment.
17.The Tribunal is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount to the Appellant 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.
18.Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 14th Nov., 2025/ Page 16 of 16