Orissa High Court
(An Appeal Under Section 23 Of The ... 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: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 572 of 2020
(An appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987)
Bala Pujari .... 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. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Millan Kumar, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-23.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In filing this FAO, the Appellant claiming himself to be the legal heir of the deceased who is claimed to have been died of a train accident, has challenged the impugned judgment/ order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A No.38 of 2016.
Apart from the above challenge, the Appellant has also sought for a direction from this Court to the Respondent for granting necessary Page 1 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 compensation in his favour due to untimely death of his son in the alleged train accident.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) Due to some personal work at home the deceased on 02.01.2016 was travelling from Jagadalpur to Koraput by Jagadalpur- Bhubaneswar Hirakhand Express bearing train No.18448 as a bona fide passenger. The deceased is claimed to have been proceeding on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It is alleged that during course of journey, due to push and pull of passengers inside the compartment, the deceased fell down from the said train in between Jeypore-Chhatriput Railway Station at KM No.230/07-08 and died on the spot. Soon after the said incident a criminal case was instituted.
(b) Upon institution of the said criminal case and completion of investigation necessary report was submitted. After death of the deceased, the Appellant filed a case bearing O.A No.38 of 2016 before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar seeking necessary compensation.
(c) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed five issues for adjudication, and upon detailed examination, concluded that the Appellant was not a bona fide passenger and not a victim of any untoward incident. The claim application was, accordingly, dismissed.
(i) Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment/ order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Page 2 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A No.38 of 2016 the Appellant preferred this appeal.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Tribunal found that no ticket was produced or recovered during investigation, that the testimony of AW- I was unreliable, the injury sustained by the deceased was not possible due to fall down from running train and the incident did not fall under the ambit of untoward incident since there were no eye-witnesses to the same.
(ii) At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework.
Section l24A of the Railways Act enacts a regime of strict liability. Once it is established that death or injury has occurred as a result of an 'untoward incident', the Railway Administration is bound to pay compensation, unless the case falls within the narrowly defined exceptions of suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural cause. Negligence, even gross negligence, is not among these exceptions. This position was firmly settled in Union of India v. Prabhaharan Vijaya Kumar1, where the Supreme Court held that fault or negligence is irrelevant under the no-fault scheme of Section 124A. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has outrightly denied cause of death of the deceased to be an untoward incident merely because the PM 1 (2008) 9 SCC 527 Page 3 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 report states that the cause of death of the deceased was neurogenic shock as a result of crushing of head. The injuries sustained are ante mortem in nature and caused due to heavy hard and blunt force impact. Further, there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. It is a settled position of law that lack of eye- witness does not negate the claim of the applicant as the Railways Act is a beneficial legislation. Further, it is a settled position of law that speculation of run-over by a train when there is doubt is legally untenable. It is a matter of common occurrence that an accidental fall from a moving train may culminate in the passenger being run over either by the same train or by another, thereby sustaining grievous or fatal injuries. Such subsequent development does not alter the intrinsic character of the mishap as an "accidental fall". There is no material on record to suggest any alternative hypothesis, such as the deceased being present on the railway track independent of the train journey. On the contrary, the contemporaneous records, viz. the inquest report, postmortem examination and the final police report, unequivocally attribute the cause of death to a fall from the train. This principle has already been settled by this Court in Santosh Ku Sahoo vs. Union of India2.
(iii) On the question of bona fide passengership, the Tribunal laid undue emphasis on the non-production of a ticket. The law on this issue stands settled in Union of India u Rina Devi3, wherein the 2 FAO No. 135 of 2020 3 (2018) 3 SCC 319 Page 4 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 Supreme Court recognized that in train accident cases, tickets are frequently lost, misplaced, or destroyed during the incident or subsequent medical treatment. It was held that bona fide passenger status may be established by circumstantial or oral evidence, and non-recovery of a ticket cannot by itself be fatal to a claim.
(iv) In the present case, the applicant produced the Inquest Report, PM report, dead body challan, seizure list, zimanama and memo of SMR Koraput, all of which point out that the cause of death of the deceased was due to fall down from running train and there is no suspicion of any foul play. AW-I, the father of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was travelling from Jagdalpur to Koraput on a valid journey ticket and had accidentally fallen down from running train, causing his instant death. Therefore, negating the evidence of AW-l regarding the manner death of the deceased which is supported by other investigation documents clearly shows the arbitrariness in the impugned order. The respondent did not adduce any cogent material to rebut this evidence, apart from speculative statements in the DRM's inquiry
(v) The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the fact that the nature of injuries of the deceased does not correspond to ones being inflicted on falling down from running train and there was no journey ticket is merely speculative and does not have any evidence for support. Au contraire, all the documentary evidence adduced by the applicant including inquest report, PM report point towards the established fact that the cause of death of the Page 5 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 deceased was due to fall down from running train without any suspicion of foul play. Such conjectural reasoning cannot displace the statutory presumption once the basic fact of an accidental fall is established. In Jameela v. Union of India4 , the Supreme Court made it explicit that even if a passenger stands at the open door of a train and falls, the occurrence constitutes an 'untoward incident' and compensation is payable. To deny relief on the ground of negligence would be to introduce a defence not contemplated by the proviso to Section 124A.
(vi) Weighing the evidence, it was submitted that the applicant has adduced sufficient material to establish that the deceased was travelling on a valid journey ticket, that he fell accidentally from the train at KM No.230107-08 between Jeypore Chhatriput railway station, and that he succumbed to injuries sustained in the fall. The absence of ticket recovery, or the suggestion of speculative reasoning, does not dislodge the claim within the framework of Section 124A. The incident falls squarely within the definition of an "untoward incident" and none of the statutory exceptions are attracted.
(vii) In view of the above, this Court may set aside the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2019 passed in OA No. 2812016 and award the appellant Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation along with 12% interest per annum form the date of application. Even though the appellant had claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- before the learned Tribunal, this Court may consider the appellant's claim for Rs.8,00,000/- 4 (2010) 12 SCC 113 Page 6 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 compensation in lieu of the Ministry of Railway Notification No. G.S.R. 1165(E) dated 22.12.2016 whereby compensation for death due to railway accident has been fixed at Rs.8,00,000/- and that of injury is fixed at Rs.4,00,000/-.
(viii) It was further submitted that this Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent railways to deposit the entire award amount along with interest before the Tribunal and further direct the Tribunal to disburse 50% of the said award amount in favour of the appellant and keep the rest in Fixed Deposit. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(a) As per the Memo and CTS Diary Entry No.12 and JYP DE No.14(J) dated 03.01.2016 one male person aged about 31 years found lying dead at KM No.230/07-05 between Section CTS-JYP. As such the alleged incident dated 02.01.2016 cannot be termed as an untoward incident, as defined under Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. It was further contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger at the time of alleged incident. It was further stated that the applicant had no personal knowledge of the incident. The Respondent, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the above noted O.A. Page 7 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUAL, BHUBANESWAR :
5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench heard the parties, perused the documents on record, and upon the basis of the pleadings framed five issues for consideration:-
i. Whether the death of the deceased was due to accidental fall as defined U/s.123(C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989? ii. Whether the deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger of the train at the time of occurrence of the untoward incident?
iii. Whether the respondent railway administration is protected U/s.124 A of the Railways Act and is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants? iv. Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased to receive the compensation as claimed? v. To what relief the applicant is entitled to?
6. In order to strengthen his case, the Applicant got himself examined and filed photocopies of the SM Memo, inquest report, dead body chalan, post-mortem report, seizure lit, Adhar card of the deceased and Zimanama in Koraput GRPS UD Case No.01/2016.
7. In its opposition, the Respondent also filed the DRM report along with certain documents marked as Ext.R/1 and examined one B.S Kumar, Inspector/RPF/Laxmipur as R.W.1.
8. Since all the above noted issues were interconnected, these issues were taken up together for adjudication simultaneously by the learned Bench. The learned Bench, accordingly, dealt with the above issues with the following answers:-Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39
9. While dealing with the Issue Nos.1 to 3, the learned Bench observed that Applicant Bala Pujari (AW/1) in his affidavit (Exb.AW 1/1) and deposition averred that, on 02.01.2016, his son Komal Pujari were travelling from Jagadalpur to Koraput on the strength of a valid railway journey ticket and had accidentally fallen down from the running train, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and the journey ticket got lost during the incident.
10. The Respondent in their defence had examined the Inquiry Officer/RPF as R.W. 1 who in his affidavit in evidence had stated that there was no eye witness to the incident and no journey ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased during inquest and there is no proof of the alleged journey by the deceased. However, the Respondent had filed the DRM report wherein it was stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the falling down of the deceased is a concocted story to get the claim fraudulently from the railways.
11. The statement of the applicant Bala Pujari was recorded by the Inquiry Officer/RPF which reveals that he does not have any knowledge that his son was travelling in any train. The doctor in the post-mortem report has opined that the death is instantaneous and due to neurogenic shock as a result of crushing of head. The injuries are ante mortem in nature and caused due to heavy hard and blunt force impact and considering these injuries, which were inflicted on the deceased, by no stretch of imagination it can be said or concluded that the deceased person had fallen down from train. Such grievous injuries can only be inflicted on a person, who has been knocked down Page 9 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 by train. In this case the final report of the GRP is not filed. Though other articles were seized from the possession of the deceased, the journey ticket was not found from the deceased.
12. On perusal of entire record, the learned Tribunal found that the applicant has failed to prove that the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers; that he was having a valid journey ticket and had died due to accidentally falling down from running train. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal hold that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and his death was not caused in an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (C)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989 and in the process, hold the Respondent not liable to pay compensation to the applicant/Appellant as per the provision under Section 124 A of the Railways Act. Accordingly, the Issue Nos.1, 2 & 3 were decided against the Applicant.
13. While dealing with the Issue No.4 the learned Tribunal observed that the applicant Bala Pujari during his examination before the Court has stated that the deceased is his son who was unmarried. The applicant has also filed a copy of the certificate issued by the local Sarpanch, Batasana GP to prove his relationship with the deceased. The Police papers also show that the applicant Bala Pujari is the father of the deceased. There is no evidence to the contrary. Thus, it was held that the applicant being the father under Section 123(b)(i) of the Railway Act, 1989 is the legal dependant of the deceased Komal Pujari. Issue No.4 was, accordingly, decided.
Page 10 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39
14. While dealing with the Issue No.5 the learned Tribunal observed that in view of his findings on Issue Nos.1 to 3 the applicant is not entitled to any compensation or relief.
15. Accordingly, the learned Bench/Tribunal after dealing with all the issues and hearing both the parties, ordered that the claim application is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The present appeal arises from the rejection of the Appellant's claim for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Upon an overall assessment of the factual matrix, pleadings, and rival submissions, the following broad questions fall for determination before this Court:
a. Whether the death of the Appellant's son occurred due to an "accidental fall from a train carrying passengers"
and therefore qualifies as an "untoward incident"
within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act?
b. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, notwithstanding the non-recovery of the journey ticket? c. Whether the findings of the Tribunal regarding the nature of injuries and absence of the ticket were based on legally sustainable reasoning?
d. Consequent entitlement of the Appellant to compensation under the strict-liability regime of Section 124A.
Page 11 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 A. The Statutory Scheme: Strict Liability and Its Consequences i. The Railways Act, 1989 embodies a no-fault liability regime in the matter of compensation for railway accidents. Section 124A makes the Railway Administration unconditionally liable once the death or injury is proved to have arisen out of an untoward incident, except in cases falling within the narrowly enumerated exceptions, namely suicide, self- inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication or natural cause. As the Supreme Court emphatically held in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar5 negligence on the part of the passenger or of the Railways is wholly irrelevant under this statutory dispensation. The judicial task is, therefore, limited to determining whether the foundational facts attracting Section 124A stand proved; the Railways cannot introduce defences not contemplated by the statute.
ii. The law further demands that the provisions be interpreted in a beneficial and purposive manner, keeping in mind the socio-welfare objective of the enactment. Denial of compensation cannot rest on conjectures, technicalities, or speculative assumptions.
B. Whether the Occurrence Qualifies as an "Untoward Incident"
i. On the Tribunal's reasoning regarding the nature of injuries The Tribunal concluded that the injuries sustained by the deceased particularly the crushing of the head were incompatible with a fall from a moving train and were 5 Page 12 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 instead indicative of a run-over. The Tribunal inferred that the story of accidental fall was "concocted."This line of reasoning is contrary to well-settled jurisprudence. It is a matter of common occurrence, judicially recognized in multiple precedents, that a passenger who falls from a moving train may subsequently be dragged or run over either by the same train or by another passing train. The subsequent aggravation of injuries does not alter the intrinsic character of the initial mishap as an accidental fall. ii. In Santosh Ku. Sahoo v. Union of India6, this Court categorically held that where documentary evidence such as the inquest report, post-mortem report, and police papers attributes the cause of death to a fall from the train, speculative theories of run-over cannot defeat the statutory presumption.
iii. The present case is squarely covered by this principle. The inquest report, post-mortem report, dead-body challan, seizure list, and police papers consistently narrate that the deceased fell from the train between Jeypore-Chhatriput at KM 230/07-08. There is no contrary documentary material. The Tribunal's conclusion, therefore, lacks evidentiary foundation and is premised on impermissible conjecture. C. Whether the Deceased Was a Bona Fide Passenger i. The Tribunal placed decisive reliance on the non-recovery of the journey ticket. This approach is inconsistent with the 6 Page 13 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi wherein it was held that Loss of ticket in an accident is a natural and common consequence. Non-recovery of ticket does not by itself negate bona fide passenger status.
ii. The Apex Court in Rina Devi further held that bona fide passengership may be established through oral, circumstantial, or documentary evidence, and that the burden on the claimant is only to show preponderance of probability.
D. Evidence in the present case i. The Appellant's testimony (AW-1), supported by contemporaneous police documents, clearly states that the deceased was travelling from Jagdalpur to Koraput on a valid ticket in Train No.18448 when he fell due to push and pull of passengers. None of the documents such as the seizure list or inquest report cast any doubt on this version. The Respondent Railways, apart from speculative assertions in its DRM report, did not adduce any substantive evidence rebutting the claim.
ii. The Tribunal's conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger rests solely on the absence of a recovered ticket and its disbelief of the Appellant's testimony--reasons that cannot survive in light of the binding ratio of Rina Devi. Once the claimant's version is corroborated by official police papers and is unrebutted by Page 14 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 cogent material, bona fide passenger status must be accepted. A close examination reveals that the Tribunal's findings were based on: (i) an incorrect assumption that injuries from an accidental fall cannot resemble those caused by a run-over; (ii) undue reliance on non-recovery of ticket; (iii) an excessively sceptical evaluation of the applicant's oral testimony; (iv) failure to recognize that documentary evidence uniformly supports the claim. iii. Such an approach runs contrary to the humanitarian nature of the legislation and the binding precedents of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal substituted speculation for evidence, and conjecture for statutory presumptions. iv. Once the documentary record attributed the death to a fall from a moving train--and no exception under the proviso to Section 124A was established--the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim.
From the cumulative assessment of the record and legal position, this Court is persuaded to hold that:
(a) The deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling from Jagdalpur to Koraput;
(b) He died due to accidental fall from a passenger train, which squarely qualifies as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2);
(c) None of the exceptions in the proviso to Section 124A apply Page 15 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 VI. CONCLUSION:
17. In view of the foregoing, the Railway Administration is strictly liable to pay compensation. The impugned judgment dated 25.11.2019 therefore suffers from manifest illegality, disregard of binding precedent, and incorrect application of statutory principles. It cannot be sustained in law. The Appellant originally claimed ₹4,00,000/- before the Tribunal. However, by virtue of the Ministry of Railways Notification No. G.S.R. 1165(E) dated 22.12.2016, the statutory compensation for death stands enhanced to ₹8,00,000/-. Courts have consistently extended the benefit of enhanced compensation where the appeal is pending and no final adjudication has attained finality. Accordingly, the Appellant becomes entitled to ₹8,00,000/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of the original application till realization.
18. 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.
19. Accordingly, this Appeal is disposed of.
20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 29th November, 2025/ Page 16 of 16