Orissa High Court
Basanta Mangaraj & Anr vs Union Of India on 31 October, 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: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O No.170 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Basanta Mangaraj & Anr. .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Nalili Kanta Dash, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Ms. Pratima Nayak, CGC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-17.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 27.12.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for the sake of brevity) in O.A. (IIU) No.123 of 2024, whereby the claim application filed by the present Appellants under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 was dismissed. The Appellants, being the parents and legal heirs of the deceased, have assailed the said order, contending that their unmarried son, Hemanta @ Chintamani Mangaraj, died in an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Page 1 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 Section 123(c)(2) of the Act, consequent upon an accidental fall from a running train during the course of a bona fide journey, and the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in denying the statutory compensation admissible under the scheme of no-fault liability.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
i. The factual backdrop, as delineated from the record, is that on 22.07.2017, Hemanta @ Chintamani Mangaraj (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was travelling from Rajasunakhala to Khurda Road Railway Station by Train No. 5430 -- Rajasunakhala - Khurda Road Passenger as a bona fide passenger, having purchased a valid second-class journey ticket bearing No. 51105772 dated 22.07.2017 for the said route. During the course of travel, near Sanapada Jakala Over Bridge, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train and succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
ii. Pursuant thereto, Begunia Police Station registered U.D. Case No.09 of 2017 dated 22.07.2017 and undertook investigation. Upon completion of the same, the police submitted a final report opining that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from multiple injuries sustained due to an accidental fall from a running train. Thus, the incident stood established as an accidental fall occurring during the course of a bona fide journey.
Page 2 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 iii. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by both sides, framed as many as five issues for adjudication, including the crucial questions as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether the death occurred as a consequence of an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. However, the Tribunal, after evaluating the materials on record, answered all issues in favour of the Respondent-Union of India (representing the Railway Administration) and consequently dismissed the claim petition of the Appellants vide its impugned judgment and award dated 27.12.2024.
iv. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award dated 27.12.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. (IIU) No.123 of 2024, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal, assailing the legality, propriety, and correctness of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The Appellants contend, inter alia, that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the settled legal position governing compensation under Sections 123(c), 124A, and 125 of the Act. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
i. It is submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has neither furnished any cogent reasoning nor offered any satisfactory explanation in respect of the journey ticket of the deceased as on the date of the Page 3 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 incident. It is not in dispute that the deceased was in lawful possession of a valid second-class journey ticket bearing No. 51105772, issued from Rajasunakhala to Khurda Road Junction for travel on 22.07.2017. The learned Tribunal, however, has failed to advert to or analyze this material evidence, and has proceeded to render the impugned judgment in a mechanical manner, without assigning any finding on the bona fide status of the deceased passenger. Such omission, it is urged, constitutes a patent error warranting re-appreciation of the evidence by this Court in appellate scrutiny.
ii. It is further contended that the Ld. Tribunal has completely disregarded the investigation report submitted by the Begunia Police Station in connection with U.D. Case No.9 of 2017 dated 22.07.2017. The said report, upon conclusion of a detailed inquiry, unequivocally records that the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained from an accidental fall from a running train, leading to instantaneous death due to haemorrhage and shock.
The finding of the police authority, based upon an independent and contemporaneous investigation, was duly supported by witness statements and the post-mortem report. Such probative material, forming part of an official investigation, could not have been brushed aside by the learned Tribunal without recording cogent reasons for its non-consideration.
iii. The Ld. Tribunal, while referring to certain documentary evidence such as the memo of the Station Superintendent, Page 4 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 Begunia Police Station, the DRM's inquiry report (Ext.R/1), and the statement of the loco pilot (Ext.R/3), arrived at a conclusion that the death was not the result of a fall from the running train, but rather a case of "dashing by train." The Appellants contend that such a finding is wholly perverse, as it stands in direct contradiction to the contemporaneous police investigation and other objective evidence on record. The Tribunal's reliance upon departmental reports prepared by railway officials, who are inherently interested witnesses in defence of the administration, betrays an apparent bias and a misdirection in law. The Tribunal was duty-bound to assess the independence, objectivity, and evidentiary value of such official reports before according them precedence over neutral evidence emanating from the civil police.
iv. The Ld. Tribunal has further erred in uncritically relying upon the testimony of Sk. Ameen, the duty loco pilot on the date of the occurrence. The said witness, being an employee of the respondent-Railways and an interested person, could not be treated as a wholly disinterested eye witness. His deposition, attributing the cause of death to "hitting by a train," was required to be tested with circumspection and corroborated by external evidence. The Tribunal's reliance upon such testimony, to the exclusion of the independent investigation conducted by the Begunia Police, and the report submitted by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, which was essentially an internal Page 5 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 departmental inquiry, reflects a failure to apply settled principles governing appreciation of evidence. In the absence of corroboration, the testimony of an official witness subordinate to the respondent-authority cannot be treated as conclusive against a claimant in a statutory compensation proceeding. v. Furthermore, the Ld. Tribunal has not assigned any specific reason for discarding or doubting the veracity of the final investigation report submitted by the Investigating Officer, Begunia Police Station in connection with the aforesaid U.D. Case No.9 of 2017. The settled position of law mandates that an official report prepared in discharge of statutory duty, and uncontroverted by credible rebuttal, carries a presumption of correctness under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Tribunal's omission to record reasons for its rejection constitutes a serious procedural infirmity amounting to perversity of finding.
vi. The Appellants further submit that the learned Tribunal has grossly misinterpreted the scope of Section 191 of the Railways Act, 1989, which merely provides that entries made in the official records and other documents of the Railway Administration shall be admissible in evidence. The said provision confers admissibility but not conclusiveness of proof. The Tribunal, however, appears to have conflated the two, treating departmental records as dispositive of factual truth. The true purport of Section 191 is confined to evidentiary admissibility, Page 6 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 leaving the question of credibility and probative weight to judicial evaluation. The Ld. Tribunal, in relying blindly upon official records without examining their authenticity or corroboration, has thereby fallen into manifest error of law. vii. In view of the foregoing infirmities, the Appellants submit that the impugned judgment and award dated 27.12.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. (IIU) No.123 of 2024 is legally unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. The findings recorded therein suffer from misappreciation of evidence, misconstruction of statutory provisions, and non-consideration of material evidence on record. The Appellants, therefore, respectfully pray that this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned judgment and award and allow the claim for statutory compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, in accordance with law. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent made the following submissions:
i. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Union of India, representing the Railway Administration, has vehemently opposed the appeal and supported the findings of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench. It is submitted that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are founded upon a proper appreciation of contemporaneous records and the official inquiry conducted by the Divisional Railway Authorities. Page 7 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 ii. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the deposition of Sk.
Ameer, the on-duty Loco Pilot of Train No. 58430 (Rajasunakhala-Khurda Road Passenger), who, in his statement recorded during the statutory departmental inquiry, categorically deposed that on 22.07.2017, while the train was proceeding between Rajasunakhala and Begunia railway sections at Kilometer No. 35/09 at about 06:22 hours, he noticed one male person suddenly trespassing upon the railway track from the left side of the engine. The said individual, without any caution or heed to the approaching train, entered the track in close proximity to the moving locomotive, leaving the Loco Pilot with no reaction time to avert the impact. Consequently, the individual was struck by the engine, run over, and succumbed instantaneously to his injuries.
iii. Immediately thereafter, the Loco Pilot informed the on-duty Train Manager through the walkie-talkie communication system, following which both officials stopped the train, attended the scene of occurrence, and found that the deceased's head was lying between the railway tracks and the rest of the body was positioned outside the track. The officials, upon satisfying themselves that the individual had died instantaneously, proceeded to Begunia Railway Station, whereupon they submitted a joint written memo to the Station Superintendent, Begunia, narrating the entire sequence of events in chronological detail. The Station Superintendent thereafter made necessary Page 8 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 entries in the Station Diary and forwarded the memo to the Divisional Office for further investigation.
iv. It is further submitted that the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) conducted a formal inquiry into the matter, during which statements of the on-duty railway staff, including the Loco Pilot, Train Manager, and other line officials, were recorded, and the relevant documents, including the train's movement log, were examined. Based on such inquiry, the DRM concluded that the deceased had met with his death as a consequence of trespass upon the railway line and had been run over by the engine of the train. The inquiry report specifically records that the deceased was not travelling by the said train as a bona fide passenger;
rather, the cause of death was a self-inflicted injury resulting from his own act of unlawful entry upon the railway track. v. Accordingly, it is contended that the present case falls squarely within the exclusionary proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which absolves the Railway Administration of liability where death results from suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, trespass, or natural cause. It is submitted that the departmental investigation, conducted promptly and in accordance with railway procedure, establishes that the deceased's death was not accidental within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2), but rather a direct consequence of his own negligent and unlawful act.
Page 9 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 vi. On the strength of the aforesaid materials, learned counsel for the Respondent-Railways submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding of fact that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident did not qualify as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. It is pointed out that the Tribunal, in para-15 of its judgment, has meticulously considered the DRM's Inquiry Report (Exhibit R/1), the Joint Memo of the Loco Pilot and Train Manager (Exhibit R/2), the statement of the Loco Pilot (Exhibit R/3), and other connected materials, and has arrived at the reasoned conclusion that the deceased was a trespasser who suffered self-inflicted injuries while crossing or walking upon the track in contravention of law.
vii. The Respondent further submits that under the statutory scheme of Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, liability for compensation arises only when the death or injury is caused by an untoward incident occurring in the course of a bona fide journey by a passenger holding a valid ticket. In the present case, it is argued that there is no reliable or contemporaneous evidence to establish that the deceased was travelling in the train at the relevant time. The mere production of a journey ticket, it is contended, does not per se prove that the deceased had actually boarded the train, particularly when the location and manner of death, as revealed from the railway inquiry, clearly indicate a case of trespass and not of accidental fall.
Page 10 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 viii. Learned counsel for the Railways thus submits that the findings of the Tribunal are neither perverse nor contrary to law, but are supported by evidence on record. The Tribunal, it is argued, has correctly applied the proviso to Section 124A in holding that the incident constitutes a case of self-inflicted injury, thereby disentitling the claimants to compensation under the no-fault liability regime contemplated by the statute.
ix. In view of the above, it is submitted that the Ld. Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench committed no error, either of fact or law, in dismissing O.A. (IIU) No.123 of 2024 by its judgment dated 27.12.2024. The impugned award, being the outcome of a reasoned adjudication founded upon credible official records and statutory inquiry, calls for no interference by this Court in the limited scope of appellate jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
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.
(i) While considering the aforesaid issues, the Tribunal observed that the Local Police Station, Begunia has registered UD Case No.09/2017 dated 22/07/2017 based upon the memo of on duty Station Superintendent of Begunia railway station. The evidence Page 11 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 available in the case record such as memo of SS/Begunia railway station, DRM's investigation report (Ext. fl/l), statement of Loco Pilot (Ext. IV3), all the documents in one voice depict that it is not a case of accidental falling down from any train but it is a clear-
cut case of dashing by train No.85430, which cannot be ruled out. After completion of investigation, the Local Police Station, Begunia has submitted the final report wherein it was concluded that cause of death of the deceased is due to ran over by running train and there is no suspicion of any foul play. Moreover, the Respondent Railway has examined one Sk. Ameer, on duty Loco Pilot of Train No. 58430 Nayagarh Town- Khurda Road passenger train as RWI, who is the direct eye witness to the alleged incident, has clearly deposed in his affidavit in evidence as well during cross-examination that he had seen while the deceased hit by the running train. Hence, the evidence of the witness RWI, cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
(ii) In fact, a station diary entry has been made by SS/Begunia railway station, and statement of Loco Pilot (Ext. R/3) of Train No. 58430, which are available on records, wherein it is found that there is a specific mention regarding the fact that one male person run over while trespassing the railway track at KM No.35/9 between Rajasunakhala (RSKA) - Begunia (BYZA) sections and it is not a case of accidental falling down from the running train.
Page 12 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18
(iii) In this connection, the Tribunal cited Section 191 of the Railways Act, 1989,which clearly stipulates that "entries made in the records or other documents of a railway administration shall be admitted in evidence in all proceedings by or against the railway administration, and all such entries may be proved either by the production of the records or other documents of the railway administration containing such entries or by the production of a copy of the entries certified by the officer having custody of the records or other documents under his signature and stating that it is a true copy of the original entries and that such original entries are contained in the records or other documents of the railway administration in his possession".
(iv) In so far as the untoward incident is concerned, the Applicants have come up with the plea that the deceased had purchased one journey ticket for commencing his journey from Rajasunakhala to Khurda Road railway station and during course of journey he accidentally fell down from the running train and died on the spot is not supported by any tangible evidence, it is rather proved beyond doubt with direct evidence that it is a case of run over that occurred while crossing railway track. Although a journey ticket was filed by the Applicants along with the original claim application which was seized by the police but it is not relevant to the case, as the death of the deceased arose not out of falling down from train 58430 (Nayagarh Town-Khurda Road passenger train) as alleged but due to run over by the said train while trespassing the railway track unauthorisedly. The only Page 13 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 thing that is of some relevance is the location of the dead body near the railway track. There is absolutely no evidence at all regarding the deceased travelling on any train or falling off a train. It is very clear in this case, going by both direct as well as documentary evidence, that the death of the deceased arose out of run over by the train which was eye witnessed by the on duty Loco Pilot (RWI) of Train No.58430 and was not on account of falling down from the alleged train. The Applicants have failed to establish that the deceased died out of a fall from running train. The Tribunal, thus, have found that the evidence at hand clearly establishes that this was not a case of accidental fall from train, which would otherwise have come under the ambit of an untoward incident, but it is clearly a case that would come under the exceptions under Section 124 A(a) to (c) of the Railways Act. In this case there is memo of on duty train Loco Pilot & Train Manager, who have made entries whose records are available, that reveal that the deceased died as a result of run over by the engine of Train No. 58430 (Nayagarh Town-Khurda Road passenger train). Against the above background, the incident in which death of the deceased was caused cannot be termed as an "Untoward incident" and it is rather a case of criminal act of negligence on the part of the deceased leading to death and is covered by the provision of exception under the section 124 A of the Railways Act.
Page 14 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18
(v) Considering the facts and attending circumstances of this case, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicants have failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and a victim of an untoward incident, therefore, the incident as alleged does not come under the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the Applicants are, therefore, not entitled to get compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act 1989.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and having perused the materials placed on record, this Court proceeds to examine the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 27.12.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. (IIU) No.123 of 2024. i. The principal issues which arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the death of Hemanta @ Chintamani Mangaraj constitutes an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, thereby entitling the Appellants to compensation under Section 124A of the said Act? ii. Whether, as held by the Tribunal, the case falls within the exclusionary proviso to Section 124A as a self-inflicted injury or act of trespass disentitling the claimants to compensation? A. Statutory Framework and Jurisprudential Context iii. Before adverting to the factual matrix, it is apposite to recall the statutory framework governing compensation for railway Page 15 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 accidents and "untoward incidents." Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 enacts a principle of no-fault liability, making the Railway Administration liable to pay compensation in the event of death or injury to a passenger resulting from an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c), irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect, or default on the part of the administration.
iv. The only circumstances in which such liability is excluded are enumerated in the proviso to Section 124A, namely where the death or injury results from:
(a) suicide or attempted suicide;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) criminal act;
(d) act done in intoxication or insanity; or
(e) natural cause or disease.
v. It is now well settled that the said provision, being a piece of beneficial social welfare legislation, must receive a liberal construction in favour of the claimant as held in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors1, Jameela v. Union of India2, and Union of India v. Rina Devi.3 vi. The Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra) has categorically held that the burden to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that the incident falls under the proviso to Section 1(2008) 9 SCC 527 2 (2010) 12 SCC 443 3 (2019) 3 SCC 572 Page 16 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 124A lies squarely upon the Railway Administration. In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to that effect, the benefit of doubt must be given to the claimant.
B. Evaluation of Evidentiary Materials and Findings vii. In the instant case, the admitted facts are that the deceased was found dead near Sanapada Jakala Over Bridge between Rajasunakhala and Begunia railway stations; and an U.D. Case No.9 of 2017 was registered at Begunia Police Station; and that the police, after due investigation, submitted a final report concluding that the deceased had accidentally fallen from a running train and succumbed to injuries caused by haemorrhage and shock. It is further undisputed that the deceased was in possession of a valid second-class journey ticket bearing No. 51105772, issued from Rajasunakhala to Khurda Road Junction for the date 22.07.2017.
viii. Despite such material evidence, the learned Tribunal has brushed aside both the final police report and the journey ticket without assigning any cogent reasoning. The Tribunal appears to have preferred the DRM's internal inquiry report and the deposition of the on-duty Loco Pilot, holding that the deceased was a trespasser who was "run over" by the train. This Court finds such a conclusion to be unsustainable in law for multiple reasons. ix. Firstly, the journey ticket produced by the claimants, whose genuineness has not been disputed by the respondent-Railways, creates a statutory presumption of bona fide travel under Section Page 17 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act. The onus, therefore, shifted to the Railways to rebut such presumption with clear, consistent, and credible evidence. The internal inquiry report, based primarily on the statement of railway employees who are interested witnesses, cannot by itself dislodge the presumption arising from the documentary proof of lawful travel.
x. Secondly, the final report submitted by the Begunia Police after independent investigation, concluding accidental fall from a running train, carries presumptive authenticity under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, being an official act done in discharge of duty. The Tribunal's failure to accord due weight to such a neutral and contemporaneous investigation, or to record any reason for discarding it, vitiates the finding as perverse and contrary to the record.
xi. Thirdly, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on Section 191 of the Railways Act is wholly misconceived. That provision merely makes entries in railway records admissible in evidence; it does not render them conclusive proof of the facts stated therein. The Tribunal has, therefore, erred in treating departmental memos and internal reports as determinative of factual truth, overlooking the settled principle that admissibility and probative value are distinct concepts. The credibility of railway records must still be judicially tested for reliability and corroboration, especially where they conflict with independent evidence. Page 18 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 C. Jurisprudential underpinnings in cases of Railway claim:
xii. The jurisprudence governing claims under Sections 123(c) and 124A has been consistently clarified by the Supreme Court. In Jameela v. Union of India (supra) wherein the Court has held that when a passenger falls from a running train during the course of journey, the incident constitutes an "untoward incident," and the Railways are liable unless the case falls within the limited exceptions of the proviso. Similarly, in Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra) it has been held that even in cases where no eyewitness is available, the presence of a valid ticket and the discovery of the body near the railway track are sufficient to infer accidental fall unless rebutted by credible evidence. The doctrine of liberal inference in favour of the claimant flows from the social welfare objective of the statute. xiii. In the present case, the respondent-Railways have not produced any direct or unimpeachable evidence to demonstrate that the deceased was a trespasser or that the death resulted from a self- inflicted injury. The reliance on the statement of the Loco Pilot, an interested employee, without corroboration from independent witnesses or forensic evidence, is insufficient to dislodge the statutory presumption in favour of the bona fide passenger. Even assuming the deceased was crossing the track negligently, such negligence does not amount to a criminal act or self-inflicted injury so as to invoke the proviso to Section 124A as held in Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra).
Page 19 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 xiv. The Tribunal's approach, in preferring departmental reports over neutral police investigation, reveals a misdirection in law and a mechanical disregard for the evidentiary hierarchy between internal memoranda and independent statutory inquiry. Judicial conscience cannot accept a conclusion which rests solely upon the testimony of officials of the respondent-department, especially where contemporaneous police records corroborate the case of accidental fall.
VI. CONCLUSION:
7. Upon a holistic appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and applicable legal principles, this Court is satisfied that the learned Tribunal has committed a patent error of both fact and law in dismissing the Appellants' claim. The deceased, Hemanta @ Chintamani Mangaraj, was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket, and his death occurred as a result of an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The impugned judgment dated 27.12.2024 is, therefore, unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
8. Consequently, the appeal succeeds. The judgment and award dated 27.12.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. (IIU) No.123 of 2024 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondent-Union of India (Railways) is directed to pay statutory compensation of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the Appellants under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Page 20 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:20:18 claim application till actual payment. 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 be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit account for a period of three years or subject to the order of the Tribunal.
9. The Respondent-Railways shall comply with this order within a period of TWO MONTHS from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall carry further interest at 9% per annum thereafter till realization.
10. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st Oct.,2025/ Page 21 of 21