Orissa High Court
Banajabasini Pradhan And Ors vs Union Of India on 12 December, 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: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O. No. 203 of 2021
(In the matter of an Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987).
Banajabasini Pradhan and Ors. .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Akansh Acharya, Adv.
on behalf of
Mr. Dhananjay Mund, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Rakesh Behera, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-21.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-12.12.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In this appeal, the appellants seek a direction from this court to set aside the nil award dated 22.04.2021 passed in OA (IIU) No.348 of 2017 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and to grant statutory compensation of eight lakh rupees with interest for the accidental death of the deceased.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30
(i) The appellants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Sankarshan Pradhan, filed OA (IIU) No. 348/2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, alleging that the deceased died due to an accidental fall from a running train while travelling from Kharagpur to Jajpur Road. A journey ticket bearing No. UWC-13329357 was stated to have been recovered from the possession of the deceased during the inquest. The incident was reported between Kendrapara and Manjuri Road railway stations near KM No. 309/37-39, where the deceased's body was found in two parts.
(ii) The contemporaneous documents on record, including the FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, and final police report, recorded the death as having occurred on the railway track. The appellants initially mentioned Train No. 12887 (Howrah-Puri Express) in the claim application and subsequently sought amendment to refer to Train No. 12863 (Howrah-Yeshwantpur Express).
(iii) The Respondent Railway relied on the statutory DRM investigation conducted under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2003, and submitted under Sections 129 and 190 of the Railways Act. The DRM report noted that Train No. 12887 was a weekly train that did not operate on the date of the journey ticket, and recorded observations regarding the position and condition of the deceased's body, the absence of eyewitnesses, and lack of material indicating negligence on the part of the Railway Administration.
Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30
(iv) The Railway Claims Tribunal framed five issues relating to the nature of the incident, bona fide passengership, entitlement to compensation, dependency, and relief. After considering the pleadings, documents and evidence adduced by both sides, the Tribunal concluded that there was no proof establishing that the deceased had purchased or travelled with a valid ticket, that the exact train allegedly travelled by was unclear, and that the injury pattern did not support accidental fall from a running train. The Tribunal held that the death did not fall within the definition of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and dismissed the claim through a nil award dated 22.04.2021, without deciding Issues 4 and 5.
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 contend that the statutory scheme under Section 124A imposes strict liability on the Railways once death results from an untoward incident, unless the Railways proves one of the narrow statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or criminal act. They argue that negligence, lack of eyewitnesses, or inconsistencies in narration do not bar compensation under the no-fault regime.
Reliance is placed on authoritative precedents including Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar1, which makes negligence irrelevant under Section 124A.
1 (2008) 9 SCC 527.
Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30
(ii) The appellants challenge the Tribunal's finding that the ticket was planted solely because the train number was initially mentioned incorrectly in the claim application. They argue that the journey ticket was seized contemporaneously during the inquest, making planting impossible. They emphasise that the Tribunal itself allowed amendment of the claim, and that bona fide mistakes in naming the train cannot override physical recovery of the ticket. They rely on Rina Devi (2018), which holds that bona fide passenger status can be proved through circumstantial evidence even when the ticket is lost or damaged in an accident.
(iii) The appellants argue that the Tribunal's reliance on the DRM report, prepared years after the incident, is arbitrary, especially when all contemporaneous documents such as inquest report, PM report and final police report consistently attribute death to accidental fall from a running train. They submit that such speculative reasoning cannot substitute statutory presumption under Section 124A once accidental fall is shown. They rely on Jameela and Ors. v. Union of India2, which held that accidental fall from train constitutes an "untoward incident"
even if passenger stands near the door.
(iv) The appellants strongly dispute the Tribunal's reasoning that the deceased being found in two pieces implies suicide. They submit that it is common in accidental falls for victims to be run over by the same train or another train, and that subsequent run-over does not alter the nature of the initial mishap. They rely on Santosh Kumar Sahoo v. 2
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3705.
Page 4 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 Union of India3, where this Court held that run-over injuries do not negate accidental fall.
(v) The appellants finally submit that none of the statutory exceptions under the proviso to Section 124A apply in this case, there is no evidence of suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication or criminal activity, and that the Tribunal erred by denying compensation on speculative and conjectural grounds. They pray that the High Court set aside the nil award and grant compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with 12% interest, directing Railway Administration to deposit the amount before the Tribunal for appropriate disbursal.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Respondent asserts that the appeal is not maintainable in law or on facts, as the Tribunal's findings are reasoned, evidence-based, and arrived at after proper consideration of all material on record. They deny the appellants' assertion that the Tribunal relied on conjecture, reiterating that the Tribunal rightly found that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his death did not arise from an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2).
(ii) The Respondent challenges the correctness of the appellants' factual claims, particularly the existence and authenticity of the journey ticket, the alleged train of travel, and the narrative of accidental fall. They 3 FAO 135 of 2020.
Page 5 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 argue that the appellants' attempt to amend the train number two years after filing the OA, only after the DRM report contradicted their initial claim, shows deliberate manipulation to match a convenient train schedule. They maintain that the ticket recovered was planted, and that mere oral assertions of the applicant cannot establish travel.
(iii) The Respondent contends that the condition of the body proves the improbability of accidental fall, relying on judicial precedent such as Dharambiri Devi v. Ministry of Railways4, which held that a body cut into two cannot normally result from a fall through a door of a moving train due to trajectory and centrifugal force. They argue that the injuries are more consistent with suicide or intentional presence on the tracks rather than accidental fall.
(iv) The Respondent asserts that the appellants have discharged no initial burden of proof to show bona fide passenger status or establish that the deceased died due to an untoward incident. They emphasise that mere presence of a body on railway premises is insufficient, citing Union of India v. Rina Devi5, and that a claim cannot be sustained without cogent evidence. They submit that the GRPS final report's opinion is only an assumption and cannot be relied upon without supporting proof.
(v) The Respondent contends that the beneficial nature of the Railways Act cannot be stretched to accommodate claims unsupported by evidence, and liberal interpretation cannot legitimise fraudulent 4 (2008) 03 DEL CK 0072 5 AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 2362.
Page 6 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 claims. They maintain that the act of the deceased falls within the exceptions to Section 124A (such as suicide or criminal act), not within the definition of an untoward incident, and therefore compensation is barred. They argue that the FAO lacks merit, contains incorrect statements, and must be dismissed.
IV. ANALYSIS AND REASONING OF THE TRIBUNAL:
5. The Tribunal's judgment proceeds by clubbing Issues 1, 2 and 3 (untoward incident, bona fide passengership and entitlement under Section 124A) and treating them as a single composite inquiry, with the result that its ultimate finding that there was no "untoward incident"
and no bona fide passengership effectively disposes of the entire claim, leaving Issues 4 and 5 (dependency and relief) unanswered.
6. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal places decisive weight on the evidence of AW-1 (wife of the deceased), highlighting that she is not an eye-witness, does not know how or when the occurrence took place, and has not even seen the body; her testimony is labelled "purely hearsay" and is rejected as incapable of establishing accidental fall, which becomes a central plank of the Tribunal's refusal to accept the occurrence as an "untoward incident".
7. The Tribunal next focuses on contradictions and uncertainties surrounding the train number: the OA originally mentioned Train No. 12887 Howrah-Puri Express (a weekly train not running on the alleged date), and only after the DRM's report pointed this out did the applicants seek an amendment to substitute Train No. 12863 Howrah- Page 7 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 YPR Express; this sequence is treated as indicative of afterthought, a "deliberate attempt" to find a train that fits the ticket timings, casting a "cloud of doubt" over the genuineness of the entire claim.
8. Using ticket timing and schedule calculations, the Tribunal reasons that the window between ticket issuance at Kharagpur (22:33 hrs on 27.09.2017) and detection of the body (around 01:30-01:40 hrs on 28.09.2017), coupled with the scheduled running time of the HWH- YPR Express, makes it improbable that the deceased could have travelled by the amended train and fallen at the spot between Kenduapada and Manjuri Road; this leads the Tribunal to conclude that the deceased "definitely had not undertaken journey" by the said train and that death "may have been caused otherwise".
9. The Tribunal undertakes a detailed analysis of the post-mortem report and injury pattern, emphasising that the body was severed into two pieces and that the cause of death was "railway cut injuries"; while accepting that such injuries are consistent with run-over, it refuses to infer that they resulted from an accidental fall from a moving train, reasoning that, in a fall, centrifugal force would normally fling the body away from the track, not under the wheels, thereby invoking and applying the Delhi High Court's reasoning in Dharambiri Devi (supra) regarding trajectory and impossibility of a body being cut into two in a simple fall.
10. While the judgment cites Rina Devi (supra), especially the proposition that mere presence of a body on railway premises is not conclusive of bona fide passengership, the Tribunal primarily uses Rina Devi (supra) Page 8 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 to justify a strict evidentiary threshold, emphasising that there is "not an iota" of direct evidence of accidental fall, that the recovery of a ticket without proof of purchase or boarding is insufficient, and that the applicants have failed to discharge the initial burden of proof necessary even under a beneficial statute.
11. The Tribunal gives limited weight to the GRPS final report, terming its conclusion of accidental fall as a "pure assumption" and refusing to rely on it; instead, it privileges circumstantial reconstructions from schedule timings, the DRM's investigation report and physical condition of the body, ultimately preferring a hypothesis that the deceased was either crossing the track or died in a manner attracting the exceptions (a)-(c) under Section 124A, though it does not specify which exception is conclusively proved.
12. In its overall approach, the Tribunal treats statutory "untoward incident" and bona fide passengership as high-threshold factual predicates requiring direct or very strong circumstantial evidence of purchase of ticket, boarding and fall; in the absence of eye-witnesses, with disputed ticket genuineness, and with train-number confusion, it resolves all doubts against the claimants rather than in favour of coverage under a beneficial, no-fault liability scheme.
13. The judgment ultimately concludes that the case "would not be deemed to be an untoward incident" under Section 123(c) IR Act, finds that the deceased was neither proved to be a passenger in a train carrying passengers nor to have accidentally fallen from such a train, and on that basis dismisses the OA without costs, explicitly declining Page 9 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 to decide dependency and quantum issues as a consequence of its adverse findings on the foundational issues.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
14. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
15. The case involves claims under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 for compensation on account of death of the deceased who was found dead on railway tracks with a valid journey ticket in his possession. The principal questions are whether the deceased was a passenger under Section 124A and whether his death resulted from an "untoward incident" as defined by Section 123(c) of the Act.
16. Section 124A is a no-fault or strict liability provision: once an "untoward incident" occurs, the Railway is liable to pay compensation irrespective of negligence or fault on its part. The proviso to Section 124A carves out narrow exceptions (suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, disease), which must be strictly proved by the Railway if it seeks to escape liability.
17. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court held that the phrase "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) must be given a liberal, purposive construction to further the benevolent object of the Act. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"No doubt, 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 Page 10 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 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 interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred."
18. Applying that principle, a bona fide passenger who falls while boarding, alighting or even standing near an open door of a running train is covered by the definition of "untoward incident". Once such an incident is shown, Section 124A creates an absolute duty on the Railway to compensate, and it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.
19. Secondly, it is undisputed that a valid journey ticket in the deceased's name was recovered from his person at the site of the accident. Section 2(29) of the Act defines "passenger" as a person travelling with a valid ticket or pass, and the Explanation to Section 124A expressly states that a "passenger" includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
20. Here, the ticket was found on the deceased during the course of the inquest. There is no evidence to suggest the ticket was planted or fabricated. Absent any proof of tampering, the recovery of the ticket is strong prima facie evidence that the deceased had boarded the train with a valid ticket, making him a bona fide passenger within the Page 11 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 meaning of the Act. This is reinforced by the statutory Explanation to Section 124A. The contention that the train number was initially misstated does not vitiate the fact of purchase; honest mistakes in identifying the train do not negate the existence of the ticket. Once a valid ticket is shown, the onus shifts to the Railway to disprove passenger status.
21. The Tribunal found that the deceased was not shown to be a bona fide passenger because (a) the ticket's authenticity and recovery were disputed, and (b) an initial error in naming the train suggested fabrication. This Court rejects this approach. As recently held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajni v. Union of India6, mere non- recovery of a ticket is not ipso facto fatal if the claimant lays a credible prima facie foundation of travel.
22. Here, a ticket was actually recovered; it was not merely "non-
recovery." The Railway's assertion of planting was speculative; in the absence of any witness evidence to the contrary, that finding cannot be sustained. Indeed, where a ticket is recovered from the deceased's person and there is no evidence of foul play, it would be contrary to justice to disregard it. The regime of compensation is meant to protect passengers, and a passenger's negligence in standing by an open door is not a "criminal act" that falls within the exceptions. Here too, there is no evidence at all of a criminal act or of suicide.
23. It is also not seriously disputed (and indeed all contemporaneous documents record) that the deceased fell from the train. The Railway's 6 2025 INSC 1201.
Page 12 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30 train-schedule argument, that the timings made travel unlikely, is an impermissible post-hoc conjecture. In any event, even assuming the deceased boarded the amended train as sought to be proved, there is no impossibility demonstrated. The statutory presumption favors the passenger in the absence of contrary proof.
VI. CONCLUSION:
24. In sum, the appellants have made out a prima facie case of entitlement:
the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket, and died as a result of an accidental fall ("untoward incident") with no exception proved. Section 124A thus unambiguously entitles the dependants to compensation. The Railway has failed to discharge any burden of proof to deny liability. The Tribunal's contrary conclusion was based on conjectures and a strict reading of facts disfavored by the statutory design. Applying the guiding precedents and the laws, this Court must uphold the claim.
25. Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The nil award of the Tribunal is set aside and the appellant is held entitled to compensation. A lump sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh) is awarded to the appellants, which was the notified compensation for death on the date of application (or such higher amount as may be prescribed under the latest rules). This Court further directs payment of interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until the date of this award, and 9% per annum thereafter until payment, as has been ordered by this Court in similar cases.
Page 13 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:30
26. 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 account for a period of five years or subject to the order of the Tribunal.
27. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th December, 2025/-
Page 14 of 14