Orissa High Court
Bhagaban Jena vs Union Of India on 24 December, 2025
Author: Sanjeebk Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O. No. 437 of 2020
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Bhagaban Jena .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv.
Mr. Akansh Acharya, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-01.12.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.12.2025
Dr. SanjeebK Panigrahi, J.
1. This appealarises out of the judgment dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No.108 of 2017, by which the claim application was dismissed and no compensation was awarded.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The appellant/injured is Bhagaban Jena, who instituted the claim application before the Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54 Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation in connection with injuries sustained in a railway incident.
(ii) The appellant's pleaded case is that on 07.01.2017 he was travelling from Cuttack to Bhadrak by the Cuttack-Bhadrak Passenger train as a bona fide passenger and fell down from the train near/at Jajpur Road Railway Station during the journey.
(iii) The appellant's case further states that he sustained a crush injury to his right foot, was taken to CHC Jajpur for treatment, was thereafter referred to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, and during treatment his right foot was amputated.
(iv) The appellant claimed compensation of ₹4,00,000/- (and interest) before the Tribunal, invoking the provisions relating to "untoward incident" and compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.
(v) The appellant stated that the journey ticket was lost during the incident, including the version that it was kept in a hand bag which was lost with bag and baggage.
(vi) The respondent Railway Administration filed written statement disputing the claim, including denial of bona fide passenger status and denial that the injury occurred in an "untoward incident" within the meaning of the Railways Act.
(vii) The respondent's pleaded narrative is that the appellant jumped out of a moving train, fell between the platform and the train, and thereby sustained injury.
(viii) The Tribunal framed four issues concerning bona fide passengership, occurrence of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2), Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54 applicability of exemption under the proviso to Section 124A, and relief.
(ix) In evidence, the appellant examined himself and relied upon medical documents including the CHC outdoor ticket, bed-head ticket, and discharge certificate. The respondent examined an RPF witness (SI/RPF) and relied upon the DRM report.
(x) The Tribunal dismissed the claim application, with findings inter alia referring to absence of ticket production, absence of eyewitness account, absence of intimation to railway/RPF/GRP authorities, and inconsistency between the appellant's version in the claim case and the statement recorded by the RPF regarding the location/circumstances of the fall.
(xi) Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 17.02.2020, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The appellant contends that the Tribunal's decision is based on conjecture and has ignored uncontroverted evidence, including medical records explicitly stating that the injuries were caused by a railway accident.
(ii) It is urged that the appellant was immediately shifted for medical treatment after the accident and hence could not have informed the Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54 RPF/GRP; non-reporting cannot be treated as suppression or fabrication.
(iii) The Tribunal erred in relying on the DRM report prepared much later by interested railway officials while disregarding contemporaneous medical and hospital documents that independently corroborate the occurrence of the accident.
(iv) It is argued that under Section 124A of the Railways Act, the liability of the Railways is strict, and negligence or contributory negligence is immaterial. Once the injury arises from an "untoward incident,"
compensation is mandatory unless the case falls within the narrow statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication, or criminal act, none of which are established here.
(v) The appellant relies on Union of India v. Rina Devi1, to contend that non-recovery of a journey ticket cannot by itself negate bona fide passengership since tickets are often lost during accidents or treatment. Circumstantial evidence and sworn testimony suffice to establish travel.
(vi) The appellant also invokes Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar2, emphasizing that the Railways Act being a beneficial legislation must be interpreted liberally to advance its purpose, not narrowly to defeat legitimate claims.
1 (2018) 3 SCC 319.2
(2008) 9 SCC 527.
Page 4 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54
(vii) Reliance is placed on Jameela v. Union of India3, to argue that even if the passenger's act involved negligence (such as standing near the door), it cannot be treated as a "criminal act" to deny compensation.
(viii) The appellant further cites Kamukayi v. Union of India4, to assert that tribunal findings based solely on post-facto DRM reports, ignoring medical and GRPS investigation records, are perverse and unsustainable.
(ix) The appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is a welfare legislation intended to provide expeditious relief to victims of railway accidents, and its dismissal of the claim on technicalities defeats the object of the law.
(x) On these grounds, the appellant prays for setting aside the impugned order and seeks compensation of ₹8,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application till realization III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The respondent contends the appeal is not maintainable on facts because Section 23 permits interference only on a "substantial question of law," and the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless the Tribunal's findings are perverse. 3 (2010) 12 SCC 443.4
(2023) 19 SCC 116 Page 5 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54
(ii) It is urged that the impugned judgment is legal, reasoned, and based on due appreciation of pleadings and oral/documentary evidence, therefore not calling for appellate interference.
(iii) The respondent argues the appellant failed to discharge the burden to prove bona fide passenger status since no journey ticket was produced and there is no supporting independent evidence of travel on the alleged train.
(iv) The respondent submits there is no credible evidence of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) because there is no eye-witness, no report by any passenger/railway staff, and the Train Guard denied knowledge of the incident.
(v) The respondent emphasizes the appellant did not intimate any Station Master, RPF/GRP, or railway authority despite the incident allegedly occurring in broad daylight, which undermines the credibility of the claim.
(vi) The respondent attacks the appellant's reliability by pointing to contradictory versions: in the claim he allegedly fell near Jajpur Road, but in the RPF statement he allegedly admitted falling due to negligence while boarding at Korei.
(vii) The respondent relies on the DRM report narrative to support the conclusion that the incident circumstances are unestablished and the claim is not proved in the manner required even under a beneficial statute.
(viii) The respondent contends that even assuming some train-related injury, the material indicates contributory negligence/self-inflicted Page 6 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54 injury, attracting the proviso exceptions to Section 124A and thereby exempting the Railway from liability.
(ix) The respondent asserts the memorandum of appeal raises no substantial question of law; at best it seeks a relook at facts, which is impermissible under Section 23.
(x) The respondent argues "beneficial legislation" does not justify blind or prejudicial construction; relief must rest on facts and evidence, and the present claim is projected as unsupported and prone to abuse.
(xi) The respondent prays for dismissal of the appeal, confirmation of the Tribunal's judgment dated 17.02.2020, and warns that allowing such claims would burden the public exchequer and open floodgates for false cases.
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:
5. The Tribunal treated the claim as one under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation under the strict-
liability framework of Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, but held that the foundational facts for invoking that regime were not proved.
6. The Tribunal clubbed Issues 1, 2 and 3 together and proceeded on the premise that the claimant must first establish bona fide passengership and the occurrence of an "untoward incident," failing which the question of statutory liability and exceptions under Section 124A does not arise.
7. The Tribunal placed decisive weight on the claimant's own evidence, particularly the inconsistency between his claim petition (fall near Page 7 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54 Jajpur Road Railway Station) and his statement recorded by the RPF (fall while boarding at Korei Railway Station due to his negligence), and treated this divergence as materially affecting the credibility of the occurrence narrative.
8. The Tribunal treated the absence of contemporaneous intimation to the RPF/GRP or station authorities as a significant adverse circumstance, noting that the incident allegedly occurred in broad daylight yet was not reported by the claimant to the Station Master or any railway authority.
9. The Tribunal noted that there was no eye-witness account and relied on the DRM report's assertion that no witness could explain the circumstances leading to the incident, and further relied on the Train Guard's denial of having any information about the alleged fall.
10. On the question of bona fide passenger status, the Tribunal considered the non-production of the journey ticket as a key deficiency, recording that the claimant had not filed the ticket to prove travel in a train carrying passengers.
11. Although the claimant produced medical documents (CHC outdoor ticket, bed-head ticket, discharge certificate) showing crush injury and amputation, the Tribunal's reasoning indicates that it did not treat the medical papers as sufficient, by themselves, to establish the legal ingredients of an untoward incident and bona fide passengership in the face of the other adverse factors.
12. The Tribunal's conclusion on Issues 1 to 3 is framed as a combined inference from multiple circumstances, contradictory versions, lack of Page 8 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54 reporting, lack of ticket, absence of eyewitness, and the DRM/Train Guard position, leading it to hold that the claimant was not a bona fide passenger and that the injury was not proved to have been caused by an untoward incident.
13. Having answered Issues 1 to 3 against the claimant, the Tribunal disposed of Issue 4 consequentially, holding that no relief could be granted, and dismissed the application without costs V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
14. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
15. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 arises from the Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's claim under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The appellant, Mr. Bhagaban Jena, was injured in a fall from a train on 07.01.2017 and lost his right foot. The Tribunal found that he was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that no "untoward incident" had been established. In reappraising the matter, we must apply the law strictly yet purposively.
16. Section 124A of the Railways Act creates a strict, no-fault liability on the Railways for accidents to bona fide passengers. It provides that if a passenger is killed or injured in an "untoward incident" (including an accidental fall from a running train under Section 123(c)(2)), the Railways must pay compensation regardless of any wrongful act or neglect on its part. The proviso carves out only narrow exceptions:
suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act by the passenger, or Page 9 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54 accidents caused by natural disease or intoxication. Notably, contributory negligence by the passenger is not one of the statutory exceptions.
17. As the Supreme Court has held in the case of Jameela (Supra) even if a passenger falls due to his own negligence (for example, standing near an open door), this does not affect the Railways' liability under Section 124A. The proviso's reference to a "criminal act" contemplates intentional misconduct with mens rea, and simple negligence or rashness does not qualify. The Court even explicitly held that even if it were assumed that the deceased fell from the train due to his own negligence, it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under section 124A. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under section 124A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railway that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness of the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railway that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under section 124 A of the Act."
Page 10 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54
18. The Railways' pleas of contributory fault or absence of negligence are thus legally irrelevant once an untoward incident is prima facie shown.
19. The Railways Act is a beneficial welfare enactment, and its provisions must be interpreted liberally to advance their object of providing speedy relief to accident victims. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (Supra) the Supreme Court held that the falling of a passenger while boarding a moving train should be covered by Section 123(c)(2) in a broad, purposive manner. The Court emphasized that the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and should receive a liberal and wider interpretation rather than a narrow, technical one. These principles control the outcome here: once it is established that the appellant was a bona fide passenger and that his injuries arose from an accidental fall from a train, the Railways' liability is absolute unless an exception in the proviso is specifically proved, which is not the case on the facts.
20. Turning to the facts, the appellant's case is that he was traveling as a passenger from Cuttack to Bhadrak on 07.01.2017, holding a valid ticket (lost during the incident), and that he accidentally fell from the running train near Jajpur Road station, suffering a crush injury to his right foot which later required amputation. He lost the ticket and bag during the fall, but produced medical records (CHC Jajpur reports, SCB Medical College bed-head ticket and discharge certificate) confirming he was treated for a crush injury and amputation. These Page 11 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54 documents explicitly describe injuries from a "railway accident" and identify the place of treatment and nature of mishap.
21. The Railway's counter is essentially that the appellant was not a genuine passenger and that the accident narrative is concocted. The Tribunal emphasized (i) the absence of the journey ticket in evidence;
(ii) no eyewitnesses or immediate report of the fall to railway authorities; (iii) a contradiction between the claimant's petition (fall near Jajpur Road) and his RPF statement (fall while boarding at Korei). On this basis, the Tribunal disbelieved the appellant's story and denied any "untoward incident."
22. This Court must examine whether the Tribunal's findings can stand in law. The non recovery of the ticket cannot, by itself, defeat the claim. The Explanation to Section 124A includes within "passenger" a person who has purchased a valid ticket and then becomes a victim of an untoward incident. In Rina Devi(Supra), the Supreme Court held that while the initial burden is on the claimant to lay a credible foundation of travel, mere absence of a ticket on the person will not negate bona fide passenger status. The claimant may discharge the onus through affidavit and other credible evidence, and the issue must be decided on attending circumstances
23. In the present case, the appellant's case is that he had a valid ticket which was lost in the mishap along with his baggage. He has explained the loss. He has also relied upon contemporaneous medical and police records which support a train related accident. In such circumstances, the mere fact that the ticket was not produced is not Page 12 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54 determinative. On the principles in Rina Devi (Supra), the appellant's explanation and supporting material are sufficient to raise a prima facie inference of bona fide travel, which the Railways must then rebut.
24. There is some inconsistency as to the location of the fall, with the claim indicating Jajpur Road and the RPF statement referring to Korei. The Tribunal treated this as fatal. This Court is unable to accept that approach. Such variation can occur in a victim's recollection after a traumatic event, and it does not, by itself, establish that the incident never occurred. At the highest, it shows some uncertainty on the precise point of fall. The contemporaneous medical and police records consistently attribute the injury to a train accident, and there is no material to show that the appellant's narrative was proved false.
25. Even if the fall occurred while boarding or due to carelessness, that does not take the case outside Section 123(c)(2). The negligence of a passenger is not the same as a criminal act so as to attract the proviso to Section 124A. Here, there is no evidence of intentional self-harm, suicide, intoxication, or any criminal act. The Railways did not prove any exception under the proviso. Therefore, the occurrence, as established on a balance of probabilities, remains an untoward incident.
26. On the totality of the material, the Tribunal's inference that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger and that the injury was not caused by an untoward incident cannot be sustained. The appellant has made out a prima facie case of travel and accidental fall, and once Page 13 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2026 18:08:54 that threshold is crossed, Section 124A fastens strict liability unless a statutory exception is proved. The Railways had the opportunity to lead reliable rebuttal evidence, including station records or evidence from crew or other passengers, but did not do so. In a beneficial scheme, such doubts cannot be resolved against the victim on speculation. Accordingly, the appellant is held to be a bona fide passenger and entitled to statutory compensation with applicable interest.
VI. CONCLUSION:
27. The appeal is allowed. The impugned Tribunal order dated 17.02.2020 is set aside. The respondent Railways is directed to pay the appellant compensation of ₹8,00,000 (Rupees eight lakh) with interest at 12% per annum from 07.01.2017 (date of filing of the claim) until realization. The compensation amount shall be paid within three months from today, to be disbursed through the Railway Claims Tribunal as per law.
28. The Tribunal is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount to the Appellant by way of account transfer or cheque and the rest of the amount to be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit account for a period of three years or subject to the order of the Tribunal.
29. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.SanjeebK Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Dec.,2025 Page 14 of 14