Orissa High Court
Smt. Sumitra Barik 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 15:04:31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.50 of 2021
(In the matter of an Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987).
Smt. Sumitra Barik and Ors. .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. A. Acharya, Adv.
On behalf of
Mr. D. Mund, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. A. Mohanty, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-18.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-12.12.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In this appeal, the appellant seeks a direction from this court to set aside the order dated 19.02.2020 passed in O.A. No. 93 of 2017 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench and to grant statutory compensation of eight lakh rupees with interest, holding the incident to be an untoward incident.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31
(i) On 01.10.2016, the deceased, Mukunda Barik, was travelling with his son, from Yeshwantpur to Balasore by the Yeshwantpur-Howrah Express. At KM No. 270/16-14, between Markona and Soro railway stations, he allegedly fell from the running train due to the push and pull of passengers and died on the spot.
(ii) The GRPS, Balasore registered UD Case No. 78/2016 and conducted investigation. During the inquest, the police recorded that the cause of death was accidental fall from a running train, which was further confirmed by the post-mortem report, final report and other connected papers.
(iii) The appellants, as the legal heirs of deceased Mukunda Barik, initially filed a claim application under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of his death in an alleged untoward incident. Pursuing this claim, they subsequently instituted O.A. No. 93/2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, invoking Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and asserting their entitlement to statutory compensation for the death of the deceased in the said untoward incident.
(iv) The Tribunal, however, held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers, and further that his death did not fall within the definition of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent Railways was not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants for the death of the deceased.
Page 2 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 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 Tribunal erred fundamentally in dismissing their claim by focusing narrowly on the alleged absence of a valid journey ticket rather than addressing the real legal issues arising under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
(ii) According to the appellants, the Tribunal's approach was hyper-
technical and resulted in perverse findings, particularly because it ignored crucial police documents prepared immediately after the incident. They emphasise that the inquest report itself records that a general compartment journey ticket was found near the body, though blood-soaked, torn and unrecoverable, clearly supporting the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. They argue that it was the duty of the GRPS to seize the ticket, and the fact that it could not be recovered owing to its damaged condition cannot be used to negate bona fide passengership.
(iii) The appellants submit that the Tribunal wrongly discarded the inquest report, post-mortem report, and final report; all of which uniformly concluded that the deceased died due to accidental fall from a running train and that no foul play was suspected. Instead, the Tribunal placed undue reliance solely on the DRM report, thereby ignoring contemporaneous police evidence that, by judicial precedent, carries substantial weight in accident cases.
Page 3 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31
(iv) On the legal framework, the appellants emphasise that Section 124A establishes a strict liability regime under which compensation becomes payable once death occurs due to an untoward incident unless the Railways proves one of the narrowly defined exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural death. Citing Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar1, they stress that negligence, including contributory negligence, is irrelevant in determining liability.
(v) On the legal framework, the appellants emphasise that Section 124A establishes a strict liability regime under which compensation becomes payable once death occurs due to an untoward incident unless the Railways proves one of the narrowly defined exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural death. Citing Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar2 (supra), they stress that negligence, including contributory negligence, is irrelevant in determining liability.
(vi) On the question of bona fide passengership, they rely heavily on Union of India v. Rina Devi3, wherein the Supreme Court held that non- recovery of a ticket cannot, by itself, defeat a claim because tickets are often lost, destroyed, or displaced in railway accidents. Circumstantial and oral evidence may suffice to establish passenger status.
(vii) The appellants submit that they have furnished sufficient oral and documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was travelling with a 1 (2008) 9 SCC 527.
2(2008) 9 SCC 527.
3(2018) 3 SCC 319 Page 4 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 valid ticket, accidentally fell between Markona and Soro, sustained fatal injuries, and that they are his legal heirs. None of the statutory exceptions apply, and the incident clearly falls within the definition of an untoward incident.
(viii) They therefore pray that the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2020 in O.A. No. 93/2017 be set aside and compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum be awarded in line with the Ministry of Railways Notification dated 22.12.2016 revising compensation for death to Rs. 8,00,000/-. They further request that the Railways be directed to deposit the amount before the Tribunal, which may disburse 50% to the appellants and keep the remainder in fixed deposit. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) There are a lot of material contradictions in the evidences of AW-1 whose testimony formed the foundation of the claim.
(ii) Inquest report reveals no ticket. The GRP paper which formed the substantial part of the evidence does not reflect so.
(iii) A.W.-1 offered conflicting version of where he detrained claiming at one stage that he pulled the alarm chain and got down at Soro, at another version it is submitted that he reached Balasore before learning about it.
(iv) There is complete absence of documentary evidence regarding his travel.
(v) The final report primarily based on family version without any independent witness's corroboration.
Page 5 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL:
5. The Railway Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and statutory provisions, recorded the following finding:
(i) The Tribunal began by framing issues relating to whether the deceased had died due to an accidental fall as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, whether he was travelling as a bona fide passenger, whether the Railways was exempt from liability under Section 124A, and, consequently, whether the applicants were entitled to compensation. The applicants relied on the FIR, inquest report, dead body challan, post-mortem report and final report, while the Railways produced the deposition of an RPF Assistant Sub-Inspector along with the DRM report.
(ii) The Tribunal, however, placed significant weight on the contradictions in the evidence of Applicant No. 3 (A.W.1), the son of the deceased, whose testimony formed the foundation of the claim. The Tribunal noted that, although, he asserted in his affidavit that his father carried the journey ticket, the inquest revealed no ticket on the deceased's person. His explanation that the ticket was blood-stained and damaged found no support in the GRP papers, which recorded no seizure of such a ticket. He further contradicted himself by stating in his RPF statement that the ticket was kept in his bag, which was allegedly left behind in the train and over-carried.
(iii) The Tribunal also found material inconsistencies regarding his account of the journey. A.W.1 offered conflicting versions of where he detrained Page 6 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 claiming at one stage that he pulled the alarm chain and got down at Soro, and at another that he reached Balasore before learning of the incident. His failure to report the incident to any railway authority, and the absence of any documentary proof that he was working in Bangalore or that he had actually travelled with his father, further weakened his credibility. The guard's statement that there had been no alarm chain pulling or detention of the train contradicted A.W.1's account.
(iv) The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in his statements regarding when and where he discovered the body, particularly in view of the station diary entry indicating that the patrolman found the body at 9:00 a.m. on 03.10.2016, contrary to the son's claim that he discovered it earlier that morning. Observing additionally that the spot where the body was found lay near the deceased's residence, the Tribunal held that the son's testimony was unreliable and "prevaricating".
(v) Given these inconsistencies, the Tribunal held that the police final report, based primarily on the family's version, could not be relied upon as independent corroboration. It concluded that the applicants had failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that his death resulted from an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Consequently, the Railways could not be held liable for compensation under Section 124A.
6. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
7. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and meticulously analysed the documents placed before this Court.
Page 7 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31
8. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 engrafts a no-fault liability on the Railways to compensate victims of "untoward incidents" involving bona fide passengers. An "untoward incident" is defined under Section 123(c)(2) to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Thus, if a passenger dies due to accidentally falling from a train, the Railways is statutorily liable to pay compensation, irrespective of fault. The statute's proviso carves out narrow exceptions:
no compensation is payable if the death or injury was caused by the passenger's suicide or attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, own criminal act, act in a state of intoxication/insanity, or natural causes.
9. Outside of these exceptions, the Railways' liability is strict and automatic, and whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default by anyone is immaterial. In other words, once the case falls within Section 124A, questions of negligence, by the Railways or the victim, are irrelevant to liability.
10. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this strict-liability scheme.
In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra), it was emphasized that an accidental fall from a train is an untoward incident, and it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault."
Page 8 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31
11. Likewise, in Jameela v. Union of India4, the Court held that even if a passenger's own carelessness led to the fall, it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124A, since such negligence does not fall under any proviso exception. 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."
12. Mere rashness or inadvertence by the victim is not equated to a self-
inflicted injury, that exception requires an intentional act to harm oneself. Thus, contributory negligence or fault of the deceased is no defense to a Section 124A claim. So long as the death occurred in the course of an untoward incident and the person was a bona fide passenger, the Railway must compensate the loss. This reflects the beneficial object of the law: to provide speedy relief to victims of railway accidents without drawn-out inquiries into fault. 4 (2010) 12 SCC 443.
Page 9 of 15Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31
13. Another key requirement is that the victim must have been a passenger, i.e. travelling with a valid ticket or pass (Section 2(29) of the Act). In claims where no ticket is found on the body, tribunals often question the bona fides of travel.
14. However, the Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra) clarified that mere absence of a ticket with the injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
15. Once such prima facie evidence is adduced, for example, an affidavit or official records indicating the journey, the onus shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim by proving that the person was not a genuine passenger. In short, non-recovery of the ticket, by itself, cannot defeat an otherwise credible claim of bona fide travel. This legal position accounts for the reality that in a violent fall, tickets may be lost or rendered illegible, and it prevents a hyper-technical denial of genuine claims on the sole ground of ticket absence.
Page 10 of 15Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31
16. Having heard learned counsel and perused the record, this Court finds that the appellants have established, on a balance of probabilities, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident, and none of the statutory exceptions are attracted. The contemporaneous official records lend considerable support to the appellants' case. The FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report and final police report - all prepared immediately after the incident, uniformly record that Mukunda Barik died due to an accidental fall from a running train and that no foul play was involved. These public documents, prepared in the ordinary course of duty, carry a presumption of correctness.
17. Notably, the inquest report, conducted by the GRP on 02.10.2016, even notes that a general compartment journey ticket was found near the body of the deceased, albeit soaked in blood and torn beyond recovery. This fact, recorded by the police officer at the scene, strongly corroborates the appellants' assertion that the deceased was travelling on the Yeshwantpur-Howrah Express with a valid ticket. The failure of the police to actually seize the mutilated ticket does not negate its existence; on the contrary, it explains why the physical ticket could not be produced in evidence.
18. In the light of the judicial precedents, such loss or damage of the ticket is not fatal to the claim of bona fide passengership. The surrounding circumstances, the deceased was found by the railway patrolman along the tracks on the very route and near the station where the train in question would have passed, and at a time coinciding with the train's Page 11 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 schedule, further buttress the conclusion that he was indeed a passenger who fell from that train. The Railways' own final report did not suggest that the deceased was a trespasser or an unauthorized person; rather, the only dispute raised was about the ticket and the manner of fall.
19. The Tribunal rejected the claim largely because it found inconsistencies in the testimony of the deceased's son, Applicant No. 3, who was examined as A.W.1. His statements contained certain discrepancies. He first said that his father had the journey ticket with him, later explaining that it became blood-soaked and could not be found after the accident, an explanation not reflected in the GRP papers. In his statement to the RPF, however, he had said that the ticket was in a bag that was left behind on the train. A.W.1 also gave differing accounts of his own movements: at one stage claiming that he pulled the alarm chain and got down at Soro immediately after the fall, and at another saying that he travelled to Balasore, learnt of the incident only upon reaching there, and then returned to the accident site. These contradictions weakened his credibility. The train guard's report also recorded no alarm chain pulling or unscheduled stoppage, contradicting his version. The Tribunal further found it suspicious that the deceased's body was discovered very close to his native village, which led to an inference that he might not have been travelling at all.
20. While the Tribunal's concerns are noted, this Court finds that the central fact, that Mukunda Barik fell from the train and died, is supported by clear objective evidence and is not undone by the son's inconsistent statements about what happened afterward. A confused reaction in a Page 12 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 moment of shock is natural, and discrepancies in A.W.1's movements do not outweigh the police findings at the spot.
21. None of his contradictions relate to the fall itself. There is no dispute that the deceased fell from a train between Markona and Soro. Since A.W.1 was not an eyewitness, his later confusion about the ticket or the sequence of events does not affect the medical and investigative evidence, which shows injuries typical of falling from a moving train. There is no indication of suicide or assault.
22. The Tribunal's doubt that this was not an untoward incident has no evidentiary basis. Unlike cases where the body's condition shows a run- over unrelated to a fall, here the body was found along the track in a manner consistent with an accidental fall during travel. There is no evidence of trespass. All official records support the conclusion that the death resulted from an untoward incident.
23. In view of the above facts and law, the findings of the Tribunal are unsustainable. The Tribunal took an unduly technical approach in demanding proof of the ticket and in discrediting the claim due to minor contradictions, while ignoring the weight of contemporary official evidence. This approach runs counter to multiple judicial precedents that the Railways Act is a welfare legislation to be interpreted liberally in favor of victims of railway accidents. The denial of compensation in the face of clear evidence of an untoward incident defeats the salutary object of the statute.
24. Applying the correct legal standards, we conclude that the deceased's demise was caused by an untoward incident, namely, an accidental fall Page 13 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 from a train, and that he was a bona fide passenger on the train in question. None of the exceptions in the proviso to Section 124A are attracted, as the death was neither intentional on the part of the victim nor the result of any unlawful act on his part. Consequently, the appellants, as dependants of the deceased passenger, are statutorily entitled to receive compensation from the Railways under Section 124A.
25. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal (O.A. No. 93/2017, decided on 19.02.2020) is set aside. The appellants' claim for compensation succeeds. The deceased having died in an untoward incident while travelling with a valid ticket, the Respondent-Union of India (Railways) is liable to pay the prescribed compensation for death. Notably, by a Notification of the Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016 (effective from 01.01.2017), the amount of compensation for death in untoward incidents was enhanced from ₹4,00,000 to ₹8,00,000. In view of this revision, which is applicable by the time of adjudication, the appellants are entitled to ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh only) as compensation for the death of Mukunda Barik.
26. Since the claimants were denied timely use of the compensation, interest at 6 percent per annum on ₹8,00,000/- is awarded from the date of filing of O.A. No. 93 of 2017 until actual payment. The Railways shall deposit the full amount with interest within three months of the date of this judgment.
Page 14 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31
27. 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.
28. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of being allowed.
29. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th December, 2025 Page 15 of 15