Orissa High Court
Claims Tribunal Act vs Union Of India on 17 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: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O No.225 of 2021
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Sushila Haro & Ors. .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India, represented .... Respondent(s)
through its General Manager,
South Eastern Railway, Garden
Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant : Mr. Akansh Acharya, Adv.
On behalf of
Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv.
For Respondent : Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Sr. PC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-16.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in Case No.OA/IIU/296/2017 which dismissed 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.
Page 1 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) As per the original claim application, on the date of the incident
i.e. 06.08.2017, the deceased Ajit Haro was travelling from Angul to Rourkela on the strength of valid journey ticket bearing the No. UYA-83483819 by Puri-Rourkela Passenger Train.
(ii) The Appellants submit that during the course of the journey, the compartment in which the deceased was travelling was heavily overcrowded, and owing to a sudden jerk caused by the abrupt application of brakes, coupled with the push and pull of fellow passengers, the deceased lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running train between Panposh and Rourkela Railway Stations, resulting in his instantaneous death at the spot.
(iii) The appellants thereafter instituted Original Application No. 296 of 2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 on account of the death of the deceased in the untoward incident.
(iv) On the basis of the pleadings and evidentiary materials adduced by the respective parties, the Learned Tribunal was pleased to frame five specific issues for determination. However, upon a purported appreciation of the evidence, the Learned Tribunal fell into grave error in holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an untoward incident within the Page 2 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Such findings, being contrary to the weight of evidence and settled legal principles, are ex facie perverse and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed.
(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.01.2021 passed in the Original Application No. 296 of 2017 by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the appellants have preferred the present 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 respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased, is contrary to the weight of the evidences on record, suffers from mis-appreciation of the material facts, and otherwise is bad in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside.
(ii) The Appellants submit that the contemporaneous documentary evidence, particularly the records and reports issued by the Police authorities, unequivocally demonstrate that the deceased met with death as a direct consequence of an untoward incident occurring in the course of his bona fide journey as a passenger. However, the Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the matter, failed to appreciate Page 3 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 these material pieces of evidence in their proper legal perspective and instead proceeded to render the impugned judgment on conjectural and presumptive reasoning. The Tribunal has further erred in placing unwarranted reliance upon the DRM Report, which, being a post-incident document prepared much belatedly subsequent to the occurrence and after institution of the claim application, cannot be accorded overriding evidentiary value over the contemporaneous police records.
(iii) The Learned Tribunal, without adverting to or taking judicial notice of the relevant facts, circumstances, and evidentiary materials available on record, has proceeded to erroneously reject the claim application on a wholly misconceived premise that the death of the deceased might have occurred under one of the exceptions engrafted in the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Learned Tribunal, while recording such findings, has further misdirected itself in law by concluding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of an untoward incident within the contemplation of Section 123(c)(2) of the said Act. The aforesaid conclusions, being contrary to the weight of evidence, suffer from manifest illegality, perversity, and non-application of mind, and are, therefore, ex facie unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside.
(iv) The Final Report submitted by the Investigating Agency, together with the Post-Mortem Report and the Inquest Proceedings, Page 4 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 conclusively establish that the death of the deceased occurred as a direct consequence of a fall from a running train during the course of his journey. These contemporaneous and official records leave no manner of doubt as to the cause and nature of the incident.
Significantly, no cogent or credible evidence was adduced by the Respondent-Railways to controvert or rebut the said findings, and hence the same stand unrebutted and uncontroverted on record.
(v) It is a settled principle of law, consistently affirmed by judicial precedents, that the initial burden lies upon the Railway Administration to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 2(29) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Learned Tribunal, however, has fallen into patent error in law by erroneously shifting this burden onto the claimants, contrary to the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Such an approach reflects a clear misapplication of the statutory presumption operating in favour of the passenger and has resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice, vitiating the impugned judgment in its entirety.
(vi) It is submitted that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, being a piece of beneficial and welfare legislation, is required to be interpreted in a liberal and purposive manner so as to advance the object of social justice underlying the statute. The provision embodies the principle of strict liability on the part of the Railway Page 5 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 Administration in cases of death or injury arising out of an untoward incident during the course of a bona fide journey. Unless the case squarely falls within one of the express exceptions carved out in the proviso to Section 124A, the liability of the Railways to compensate the victim or the legal heirs of the deceased is absolute and does not depend upon proof of negligence or fault.
(vii) In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the Learned Tribunal has gravely erred in law and on facts in dismissing the claim application despite the existence of ample oral and documentary evidence conclusively establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death occurred as a result of an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. The findings recorded by the Learned Tribunal are manifestly perverse, contrary to the evidentiary record, and unsustainable in the eye of law. Consequently, the impugned judgment and award are liable to be quashed and set aside, and the Appellants are entitled to compensation along with statutory interest as envisaged under Section 124A of the said Act.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
5. On the contrary the Learned Counsel from the Respondent made the following submissions:
(i) It is submitted that in proceedings arising out of untoward incidents under Section 124A of the Railways Act, the initial onus upon the claimant is limited to establishing, on the basis of the preponderance of Page 6 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 probabilities, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the death occurred as a result of an untoward incident during the course of a valid journey. Once such foundational facts are proved, a statutory presumption operates in favour of the claimant, and the burden then shifts to the Railway Administration to disprove the same by adducing cogent, credible, and affirmative evidence. In the absence of such rebuttal, the liability of the Railways to compensate under Section 124A becomes strict and absolute, irrespective of fault or negligence, consistent with the beneficial and welfare character of the legislation.
(ii) It is contended that the Appellants have failed to satisfactorily discharge the initial burden of proof cast upon them under Section 124A of the Railways Act. The evidentiary materials placed on record do not conclusively establish that the deceased had actually boarded the train in question, nor do they substantiate that he fell therefrom and sustained fatal injuries as a direct consequence of such fall. In the absence of proof of these foundational facts, the alleged incident cannot, in law, be categorized as an untoward incident or an accidental fall from a running train within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the said Act. Accordingly, no statutory liability can be fastened upon the Respondent-Railways to pay compensation under Section 124A.
(iii) The Learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimony of A.W.1, the wife of the deceased, as her deposition lacked credibility and appeared to be tainted with exaggeration and material Page 7 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 inconsistencies. The Tribunal, upon due appreciation of evidence, correctly observed that her statements seemed to be motivated by an ulterior intent to secure compensation, rather than being based on truthful narration of facts. Hence, her testimony could not be accorded any probative value and was rightly discarded as unreliable.
(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 from the person or belongings of the deceased. The Respondents have further contended that the ticket subsequently produced by the claimants was a fabricated document, allegedly planted with the mala fide intent of substantiating a false claim for compensation. In the absence of any cogent, reliable, and corroborative evidence establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the foundational requirement for attracting 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:
6. The Tribunal, while dismissing the claim application, recorded the following key observations and conclusions:
Page 8 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01
(i) The Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the deceased was not established to be a bona fide passenger. It found that the journey ticket allegedly recovered, was a later insertion and not genuine. This conclusion was drawn after noting discrepancies between the inquest report and the post-mortem challan entries.
Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim could not be sustained in the absence of proof of lawful travel by the deceased.
(ii) The Tribunal emphasized that at the time of the inquest, no journey ticket was recovered from found deceased's possession. The court found it "inexplicable" that the post- mortem doctor could have recorded the presence of a ticket when earlier police papers had not documented the same. This inconsistency further undermined the authenticity of the alleged ticket and contributed to the rejection of the claim.
(iii)It is further noted that neither the on-duty guard nor the loco pilot of the alleged train reported witnessing any untoward incident during the journey. Moreover, there is an absence of any eyewitness or co- passenger testimony to substantiate the claim that the deceased fell from the running train. This lack of direct evidence seriously undermines the assertion that the death occurred due to an accident during the course of travel.
(iv) The Tribunal held that such circumstances, as they stand, do not demonstrate an accidental fall from the train, and therefore, the occurrence cannot be classified as an "untoward incident". Since Page 9 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 establishing such an incident is a sine qua non for claiming compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, this essential requirement remains unfulfilled. And consequently, the Railways are protected under the exception clause of Section 124A of the Act.
(v) The Learned Tribunal placed considerable reliance upon the Divisional Railway Manager's (DRM) Report, observing that the same remained unchallenged and undisputed by the claimants during the course of proceedings. The Tribunal, therefore, treated the said report as a material piece of corroborative evidence supporting the Respondents' contention that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that no incident of accidental fall from a running train had in fact occurred. This uncontroverted report, in the considered view of the Tribunal, lent substantial credence to the Respondents' version and consequently fortified the ultimate conclusion leading to the dismissal of the claim application
(vi) The medical opinion expressed in the postmortem, noted that the deceased died from neurogenic shock due to complete transaction of the head, with the death classified as accidental. However, it emphasized the burden of proof rests on the claimants to establish that the death resulted specifically from accidental fall from the running train. Since the claimants failed to provide satisfactory evidence to meet this burden, the claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 was rightly rejected. Page 10 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01
(vii) Consequently, Issues 1, 2 and 3 were decided against the claimants. In view of such findings, the Tribunal declined to examine Issues 4 and 5 relating to dependency and relief. The claim application was thus dismissed.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
7. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 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? And c. whether the Railway Administration stands absolved of liability by reason of any exceptions under Section 124A?
8. The Supreme Court as well as this Court have consistently observed that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 embodies the principle of strict liability, also referred to as no-fault liability, in cases of railway accidents or untoward incidents. Consequently, once a case falls within the ambit of Section 124A, the question of negligence or fault becomes wholly immaterial, and liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation arises automatically, except in cases expressly covered by the statutory exceptions enumerated in the proviso to the said section.
9. This Court deems it appropriate to advert to the constitutional philosophy enshrined under Article 38 of the Constitution of India, which mandates the State to secure and promote the welfare of the Page 11 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 people by ensuring a social order permeated by justice--social, economic, and political. In pursuance of this constitutional obligation, Parliament has enacted various social welfare legislations that embody the principle of strict liability, aimed at providing prompt and equitable compensation to victims of accidents or mishaps arising out of public utility services, irrespective of fault or negligence. These enactments, including Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, represent the legislative commitment to the ideal of social justice and the protection of vulnerable citizens, ensuring that the State and its instrumentalities remain accountable in situations where individuals suffer injury or loss of life in the course of availing essential public services.
10. In this regard, reliance is rightly placed upon the landmark judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta &Anr. v. Union of India & Ors1wherein the Court evolved and affirmed the principle of absolute liability in respect of enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. The Hon'ble Court categorically held that such liability operates independently of, and without the limitations of, the exceptions recognised in Rylands v. Fletcher2. It was further enunciated that any enterprise carrying on such inherently dangerous operations owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results from its activities. This doctrine, founded upon considerations of social justice and welfare, imposes a heightened standard of care and accountability on 1 (1987) 1 SCC 395 2 (1868) LR 3 HL 330 Page 12 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 public and private undertakings alike, thereby reinforcing the protective and compensatory objectives underlying welfare legislations such as Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
11. It may further be observed that once the foundational facts -- namely, the occurrence of the death of a passenger in an "untoward incident"
and the establishment that such passenger was a bona fide passenger -- stand proved on record, the liability of the Railway Administration under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 becomes absolute and unconditional. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the absence of any wrongful act, negligence, or default on the part of the Railway Administration is wholly immaterial, inasmuch as the said provision expressly incorporates the doctrine of strict liability. Consequently, the Railway Administration is held liable to compensate irrespective of fault, thereby ensuring the legislative objective of affording protection, relief, and just compensation to victims or their legal representatives in cases of railway accidents or untoward incidents.
12. At the very threshold, it becomes imperative to examine the statutory scheme embodied under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which unequivocally institutes a regime of strict liability on the part of the Railway Administration. The provision stipulates that where the death of, or injury to, a passenger results from an "untoward incident"
occurring in the course of railway operations, the Railway Administration is mandatorily bound to pay compensation, irrespective Page 13 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 of any negligence, wrongful act, or default on its part. Such liability is, however, subject only to the specific exceptions expressly carved out in the proviso to the said section. The legislative intent underlying Section 124A is thus to impose an absolute statutory liability upon the Railways, designed to ensure social welfare and to provide protection and just compensation to passengers or their legal representatives in the event of unforeseen and untoward incidents during the course of railway travel.
13. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is manifest that in cases involving untoward incidents, particularly where the activity in question is carried out under the control or supervision of a statutory authority such as the Railway Administration in the present case, the principle of strict liability stands squarely attracted. The Central Government, acting through the Railway Administration, has thus rightly been fastened with the statutory obligation to compensate victims of such incidents. The doctrine of strict liability, as evolved and firmly entrenched in Indian jurisprudence, applies with full force to statutory undertakings engaged in activities affecting public safety and welfare. This ensures that victims or their dependents receive timely and just compensation, consistent with the constitutional ethos embodied in Articles 38 and 39A of the Constitution of India, which enjoin the State to promote social justice, equality, and protection for all citizens.
14. On the issue of bona fide passengership, this Court finds that the Learned Tribunal erred in placing undue and exclusive reliance upon Page 14 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 the non-recovery of the journey ticket during the inquest proceedings and in holding that the ticket subsequently produced by the claimant was a fabricated document. Upon careful scrutiny of the record, this Court is satisfied that the deceased was indeed a bona fide passenger, as the journey ticket was duly produced by the Appellants and has not been effectively rebutted by the Respondents. It is a settled position of law that once the claimant establishes, even prima facie, the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger, the burden shifts upon the Railway Administration to disprove the same by leading cogent evidence. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India3, wherein it was held that the initial burden upon the claimant may be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts, and thereafter, the onus lies upon the Railways to rebut such evidence. The Court further observed that the mere non-recovery of a journey ticket at the time of inquest, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive proof to negate the claim of bona fide passengership, particularly in cases of accidental death arising out of untoward incidents.
15. The same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi4, wherein it was categorically held that Section 124A of the Railways Act, mandates the payment of compensation to victims or their legal representatives irrespective of any wrongful act, negligence, or fault on the part of the Railway Administration, so long 3 2024 INSC 603 4 (2019) 3 SCC 572 Page 15 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 as the death or injury has resulted from an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the said provision embodies a statutory regime of strict liability, intended to secure prompt, certain, and just relief to victims of railway accidents, without compelling them to establish negligence or fault. This interpretation reinforces the welfare-oriented and remedial object underlying the legislation, ensuring that the rights of passengers and their dependents are adequately protected.
16. In the present case, the Applicants have adduced cogent and credible evidence, including the valid journey ticket, the Inquest Report, the Post-Mortem Report, and the Final Investigation Report, all of which consistently record that the deceased met with his death as a result of an accidental fall from a running train during the course of the journey. Further, A.W.1, the wife of the deceased, has categorically deposed that the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket prior to commencement of travel. The Respondents, however, have failed to produce any substantive, reliable, or corroborative material to rebut the said evidence and have instead sought to rely upon speculative and inferential observations contained in the DRM's inquiry report, which, by its very nature, lacks evidentiary sanctity. Consequently, the uncontroverted evidence on record firmly establishes the bona fide passengership of the deceased and substantiates the Applicants' entitlement to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Page 16 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01
17. Upon a careful and comprehensive appraisal of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the Applicants have successfully established that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger with a valid journey ticket and that he accidentally fell from the running train between Panposh and Rourkela Railway Stations. Such an occurrence squarely falls within the ambit of an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, thereby attracting the operation of Section 124A of the said Act. This position has been authoritatively affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar5, wherein it was held that the provisions relating to compensation under the Railways Act are remedial and welfare-oriented in nature and must, therefore, be interpreted liberally and purposively so as to advance the object of the legislation. The Court further cautioned against adopting a restrictive construction of the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train", observing that such an approach would defeat the legislative intent and unjustly deprive bona fide passengers or their legal heirs of their rightful entitlement to compensation.
18. In the present case, the evidence unequivocally establishes that the death of the deceased occurred due to an untoward incident within the meaning of the Act, and none of the statutory exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124A stand attracted. The death was not the result of any felonious, intoxicated, or suicidal act on the part of the deceased. 5 (2008) 9 SCC 527 Page 17 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 There is no material on record to suggest that he intended to cause self- harm or was engaged in any act constituting an offence. Being a bona fide passenger at the relevant time, the deceased squarely falls within the protective ambit of the statute. Consequently, the claim under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 is held to be maintainable, and the Railway Administration is statutorily liable to compensate, irrespective of fault or negligence.
VI. CONCLUSION:
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and the materials placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the Appellants have successfully established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death occurred as a result of an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2), read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The evidence adduced by the Appellants, being cogent and credible, clearly demonstrates that none of the statutory exceptions enumerated in the proviso to Section 124A stand attracted in the present case. Consequently, the liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation under the said provision stands established.
20. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2021, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No.296 of 2017, is hereby set aside. The Respondent- Railway Administration is directed to pay to the Appellants the statutory compensation, together with interest as admissible under law, Page 18 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:01 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
21. Accordingly, this Court directs the Respondent-Union of India (Railways) to pay a sum of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the Appellants towards compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum, payable from the date of filing of the claim application u5ntil the date of actual payment. The Respondent-Railways shall deposit the aforesaid amount before the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall ensure disbursement of the compensation amount to the Appellants in accordance with law and after proper verification of their identity.
22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th October, 2025/ Page 19 of 19