Orissa High Court
Dhaneswar Bhainsal & Anr vs Union Of India on 29 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: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O No. 37 of 2021
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Dhaneswar Bhainsal & Anr. .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sambit Das, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, CGC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-19.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for brevity) in O.A.(IIU) No.84 of 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 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02
(i) On 14.07.2011 , the deceased Phulla Bhainsal was travelling from
Raipur to Kantabanji Railway Station in a diverted train Korba- Thiruvantapuram Express Train, due to push and pull of co- passengers, he lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running train near Khariar Road Station Yard, as a result she sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was a bona fide passenger and the ticket was lost in the accident.
(ii) The GROP, Kantabanji registered UD Case No. 14/2011 and investigated into the matter. 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) On a consideration of pleadings, the Tribunal concluded that the victim was not a bona fide passenger and that no untoward incident had occurred. Consequently, the claim application was dismissed.
(iv) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.01.2020 passed in O.A. No. 84 of 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 Appellants submitted that the dismissal of the Original Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Page 2 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased is against the weight of the evidences on record, suffers from misappreciation of the material facts, and is bad in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside.
(ii) The Appellants further contended that the Inquest Report, the Postmortem Report, and the Final Report, unanimously conclude that the death of the deceased was due to fall from the train. No cogent or contrary evidence has been adduced by the Railways to rebut these findings. It was urged that mere reliance on the DRM's report, unsupported by any substantive proof, cannot from the sole basis for denying the claim.
(iii) The Appellants further contended that the deceased had fallen near Khariar Road from the alleged train at Platform No. 1. In urged that, despite the existence of the RPF Diary entry and the Station Master Memo- both of which disclose the name of the then SMR, Khariar Road and RPF personnel involved in the inquiry-the said officials were not produced, thereby weakening the case.
(iv) Appellants No.1, husband of the deceased, and Appellant No.2, the son of the deceased, appeared before the Tribunal filed affidavit in support of the claim. They were duly cross examined by the learned counsel for the Respondent-Railway Administration. The Appellants explained that their inability to produce the co-passenger as witness, stating that he had unfortunately passed away two years earlier.Page 3 of 13
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02
(v) Upon weighing the evidence, it is submitted that the applicants have produced sufficient materials to establish that the deceased was travelling from Raipur to Kantabanjhi Railway Station, and fell from the running train, sustained injuries and subsequently scummed to them. 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.
(vi) In view of the above, he contended that the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2020 passed in O.A. No. 84 of 2017 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:
(i) The deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as no journey ticket was recovered from her 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. Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02
(iii) The Learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimony of A.W 1 and A.W-2, as their depositions lacked credibility and appeared to be motivated by an ulterior intent to secure compensation, rather than being based on truthful narration of facts.
(iv) The Appellants have failed to discharge the essential burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket at the time of the alleged incident. The inquest proceedings, as well as other contemporaneous records, do not indicate recovery of any travel ticket form the person or belongings of the deceased. The plea of selective loss of the journey ticket, as taken in the original application, is not acceptable.
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. 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 travel by the deceased.
7. The Tribunal observed that, A.W.2, son of the deceased, stated in his affidavit that he came to know of his mother's disappearance from his cousin brother and from local residents of Khariar Road, who Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 informed him that she had fallen from a train on 15.07.2011. He further deposed that his cousin brother had accompanied the deceased to Raipur Medical College and Hospital and was returning from Raipur on 14.07.2011, when he learned that the deceased had gone missing somewhere near Khariar Road. A.W.2. stated that, upon receiving this information, he arranged a vehicle that night and commenced a search for his mother, and on 15.07.2011 he received information that she had fallen from the train.
8. The Tribunal noted that A.W.1, the husband of the deceased, in his statement recorded by RPF, deposed that on 14.07.2011 his wife had proceeded to Khariar for treatment, as she was under the care of a private doctor who required her to report fortnightly for medical check-ups. When she did not return, he searched for her but was unable to trace her. Subsequently, he received information from on-
duty Station Master, Khariar Road, that a female dead body was lying in the Khariar Railway Station yard and that the same had been shifted to the Govt Hospital for post-mortem. He immediately proceeded to the hospital and identified the body kept at mortuary as that of his wife.
9. The Tribunal observed that certain inconsistencies in the applicant's version. While the applicant stated that on 14.07.2011 his wife had gone for the treatment, his affidavit as A.W.1 records that his nephew had accompanied her, that both had purchased the ticket, and that it was his nephew who informed him about being missing. However, in the statement recorded by the RPF, he stated that when his wife did Page 6 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 not return by the evening of 14.07.202, he searched for his wife at Lathore Station but could not trace her. He further stated that on 15.07.2011 he went to Khariar and met the doctor, and it was thereafter that he received information from on-duty Station Master regarding a female dead body lying at the Khariar Railway Station yard, which had been shifted by the GRPS, Kantabanji.
10. It is further observed that if the nephew had indeed accompanied the deceased, there would have been no necessity for the applicant to contact the doctor to ascertain her whereabouts. This material contradiction casts serious doubt on the applicant's version, indicating that he has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and that facts narrated by him are inconsistent and unreliable.
11. The Tribunal held that such circumstances on record do not indicate or substantiate that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the train. Consequently, the occurrence cannot be construed as an "untoward incident". Since the establishment of an incident is sine qua non for entitlement to statutory compensation under Section 124A of the Act, the failure to satisfy this foundational requirement disentitles the claimants to relief. Accordingly, the Railways stands absolved of liability under the exception clause of Section 124A of the Act.
12. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the incident could not be brought within the ambit of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, nor was the appellant entitled to compensation under Section 124-A thereof. The Tribunal observed Page 7 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 that the case fell within the exceptions enumerated under Section 124- A, as there was no proof of bona fide travel or accidental fall.
13. 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:
14. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the materials on record.
15. Before delving into the factual matrix, it is apposite to recapitulate the legal framework governing claims under Sections 123 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
16. The Railways Act, 1989, contemplates a regime of strict liability cast upon the Railway Administration in cases of death or injury resulting from an "untoward incident". Upon the establishment of such an occurrence, the Railway is statutorily obligated to disburse compensation, irrespective of negligence or fault on its part, save and except where it is able to bring the case within the ambit of the exceptions delineated under the proviso to Section 124-A, namely, suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication or insanity, or natural cause.
17. It is now a well settled proposition of law that the mere absence of a journey ticket or pass, by itself, does not warrant the inference that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02
18. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi1, has authoritatively laid down that upon the claimant producing an affidavit asserting that the deceased was a passenger who met with death in the course of railway travel, the burden proof shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut such assertion or establish that the case falls within any of the statutory exceptions. It was observed:
"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 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."
19. It is further pertinent to observe that departmental inquiry reports such as the DRM report must be possess contemporaneity and credibility to command evidentiary weight. A belated or perfunctory report prepared after an undue lapse of time, without due examination of primary evidence, bears little probative value and cannot prevail over contemporaneous records such as those maintained by the police or medical authorities.
20. This Court observed that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 creates a no-fault liability on the part of the Railway 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572.
Page 9 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 Administration in cases where death and injury occurs due to an "untoward incident". Unless the case falls within one of the enumerated exceptions. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar2, "........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".
21. Applying the settled legal principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident from the inquest report, post-mortem report and the final report consistently record that the deceased died due to fall from a running train.
22. It is observed that the police investigation and GRPS records indicate that the deceased fell down from the running train near Khariar Road Railway Station Yard. No evidence was led by the Railways to rebut this version or to show that the deceased was trespasser. Thus, in absence of contrary evidence, and keeping in mind the principles laid down in Rina Devi (Supra), the deceased is entitled to be treated as a bona fide passenger. (2008) 9 SCC 527 2 Page 10 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02
23. In the present case, the non-recovery of the journey ticket, having evidently lost it in the course of the incident, the evidentiary corpus, viewed cumulatively, unequivocally substantiates the plea of bona fide passengership and the occurrence of an untoward incident. The evidence adduced by the Appellants sufficiently discharges the initial burden of proof and establishes a strong presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
24. The Tribunal laid undue emphasis on the inconsistent statements of A.W.1 and A.W.2 regarding the purchase of the journey ticket and further speculated that the death could have resulted from a self-inflicted injury. However, there is nothing on record to suggest the presence of any intent or suicidal motive on the part of the deceased. The approach adopted by the Respondent in disregarding such cogent and conclusive evidence, and the consequent decision of the Tribunal against the Appellants, is legally unsustainable and amounts to manifest illegality resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice.
25. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts of the present case, it transpires that although certain factual discrepancies exist in the evidentiary record, a judicious and balanced appreciation of the material on record unmistakably tilts the balance in favour of the Appellants. The case advanced by the Appellants stands on a firmer legal footing, as the Railway Administration has failed to discharge the evidentiary burden incumbent upon it to bring the case within the ambit of the statutory exceptions enumerated under Page 11 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. While the Appellants have duly discharged their initial burden, the corresponding obligation that shifted to the Railway Administration to establish the applicability of any exception has remained unfulfilled. VI. CONCLUSION:
26. In In view of the forgoing analysis and the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 84 of 2017 cannot be sustained in law and hereby set aside. It is accordingly declared that the deceased Phulla Bhainsal, met her 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.
27. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
28. The Railway Administration is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of actual payment.
29. 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 Page 12 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 account for a period of three years or subject to the order of the Tribunal.
30. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 29th November, 2025/ Page 13 of 13