Orissa High Court
Biswanath Maharana & Anr vs Union Of India on 24 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: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O No.25 of 2020
(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).
Biswanath Maharana & Anr. .... Appellant(s)
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : MR. Dhananjay Mund, Adv.
Mr. Akansh Acharya, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Karunakar Nayak, Sr.P.C.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-15.12.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.12.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 calls in question the judgment dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, whereby the claim application filed by the appellants seeking compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 was dismissed.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The case of the appellants in a nutshell is that on 22.03.2014 the deceased along with one of his friends named Abinash Khatoi was travelling from Puri to Bhubaneswar with valid General tickets. They Page 1 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41 were going to Bhubaneswar to purchase some computer video recording instruments. While the said train just departed from Puri railway station, the deceased went to toilet to attend call of nature but did not return. After some time when the deceased did not return, the passenger started frantically searching but could not trace him out. Then his friend got down in Khurda Road railway station and called the deceased phone but the deceased phone was not reachable. Then he returned to Puri and informed the parents of the deceased about the matter. Later, they came to know that the deceased accidently fell down from the moving train and died in between Malatipatapur and Puri railway station due to a violent jerk. Thereafter, Puri GROP Registered a UD case No.02 of 2014.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant has presented the following arguments:
i. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the learned Railways Claims Tribunal has erred in law by presuming that the deceased may have been trespassing on the railway track and was killed by a running train. This presumption of the learned Tribunal is not supported by any evidence and is contrary to the material on record.
ii. The deceased was found dead on the way at Km. No.496/8-7, head towards East, leg towards West, face towards Earth, Page 2 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41 beside the railway track 5.6.7.8.9. The skull of the deceased was missing from above the eyes.
iii. There was grievous injury on the right shoulder and below the knee of the left leg and there were multiple injuries on the body and with black stain in the body which proves that he fell down from a running train.
iv. In so far as the issue of bona fide passengership, reliance was placed on the testimony of A.W.1, who deposed that the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket and kept the same in his purse, which was lost in the course of the untoward incident.
v. It was further submitted that the co-passenger, Abhinash Khatoi, was examined by the Government Railway Police, and his statement, along with that of Appellant No.1, was duly recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., thereby corroborating the appellants' case of lawful travel. vi. The Doctor conducting autopsy report, opined that the cause of death was due to head injury causing instantaneous death. All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and could have been caused by a running train. The Investigating Officer of the police has also submitted that the cause of death was due to accidental fall which forms the part of the Final Form thereby satisfying the statutory requirement of an "untoward incident"
under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41
vii. It was contended that despite being given many opportunities, the Railway Administration failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the death was caused due to trespassing, suicidal act, or accidental dashing by a train.
viii. Accordingly, it was prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant compensation of ₹8,00,000/- along with interest.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel from the Respondents made the following submissions:
i) The learned counsel for the Respondents put forward that an appeal under Section 23 lies only on a substantial question of law. Interference with findings of fact is permissible only when such findings are perverse. Reliance is placed on Union of India v. Rina Devi1.The Supreme Court has categorically held that the mere presence of a dead body on railway premises is not conclusive proof of bona fide passenger status or entitlement to compensation.
ii) The applicants submit that the deceased had been to toilet for refreshment but did not return, and probably fell down from the running train due to jerk of the train. But nowhere it is established that which train from where the deceased fell down.
1 (2019) 3 SCC 572 Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41
iii) During the inquiry, no travelling ticket or authority of travel was found from the dead body of the deceased during preparation of the inquest report.
iv) The inquest over the dead body and during the inquest, no journey ticket was found from the possession of the deceased.
Hence, his passengership is questionable.
v) Though the ASI, Puri GROP, the Guard Srri S.N. Mallick reported that one dead body was lying at 7.025 hr. on train between Malatipatapur at M. No.496/8-7 after passing of the train No.18478 Express, but it is difficult to establish exactly from which train the deceased fell down and died.
vi) Though the applicant in his deposition has only mentioned about Utkal Express (Train No.18477) on 22.03.23014 was 8:55 hrs. as reported by the Duty Guard of the Train, but the body was found at 7.25 hr. between the track at about 7.25 hr as per the report of the Loco Pilot and Guard of Train No.18478. Hence, falling from Utkal Express is doubtful. The timing of the train passing the said spot is illusive.
vii) Different Courts have opined differently but the Railways Claim Tribunal Act being a beneficial legislation but the applicant has to be produced the genuine material for the claim. The compensation cannot be granted on false claim under the garb of beneficial legislation.
Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41
viii) As held in Jamirul Nisha & Ors. v. Union of India2, the claimants must affirmatively establish that the deceased accidentally fell from a train. Mere ipse dixit cannot be taken as a ground.
ix) Under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the claimants are required to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid journey ticket; and the death occurred due to an untoward incident as defined under the Act.
x) Furthermore, the claimants failed to produce any valid journey ticket or credible independent evidence to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. No ticket was recovered during the inquest, nor did the RPF officials find any such document. A.W.1, being the father of the deceased, is a related witness whose testimony cannot be relied upon in the absence of any cogent or trustworthy evidence.
xi) The learned counsel questions the reason why the deceased was travelling at 8:50 PM to purchase computer equipment, as shops would ordinarily be closed by that time. The alleged co- passenger was neither present during the inquest nor examined before the Tribunal. Hence, his so-called co- passengership is also under cloud.
xii) The deceased was a resident of an area close to the place of occurrence, making it plausible that he was crossing the 2 (2009) ACJ 1393 Page 6 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41 railway tracks rather than travelling in a train. Hence, it cannot be conclusively stated that he has suffered due to accidental fall.
xiii) Accordingly, the deceased does not fall within the definition of a bona fide passenger under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, making the claim under Section 124A invalid.
xiv) The DRM and inquiry reports do not conclusively establish that the deceased suffered an accidental fall from a running train. There is no eyewitness to the alleged incident, nor was any report made to the Guard, Loco Pilot, or Station Master of any train. No authority has identified the train from which the deceased allegedly fell. Mere recovery of a dead body near railway tracks is insufficient to sustain a claim under Section 124-A, as held in Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh, 2009 ACJ 2104 (SC)3.
xv) The burden of proving an untoward incident and bona fide passenger status lies squarely on the claimants, as reiterated in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar4, which burden remains undischarged. Further, the post-mortem report does not conclusively establish accidental death and does not rule out suicide.
3 Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh, 2009 ACJ 2104 (SC) 4 (2008) 9 SCC 527 Page 7 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41 xvi) The claim for enhanced compensation of ₹8,00,000/- is legally untenable, as the accident occurred in 2014, whereas the amendment of the rules regarding compensation came into effect only from 01.01.2017. Hence, the prayer for the compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-as per the revised rule is not tenable in the eye of the law.
xvii) Lastly, the respondents stated that the Railways Act, though beneficial legislation, does not intend to grant compensation on speculative claims. Liberal interpretation cannot amount to blind construction that is not supported by facts or evidence. The learned Tribunal correctly appreciated the evidence on record, and the claimants having failed to discharge the statutory burden of proof, the impugned order dated 23.09.2019 should be upheld by this Court.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:
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) The learned Railway Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the applicants failed to establish that the death of the deceased occurred due to an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41
(ii) The Tribunal noted that although the inquest and final police reports presumed accidental fall, such conclusions were based solely on the statements of family members and were therefore hearsay in nature. No independent eyewitness was examined either during the inquest or before the Tribunal. The alleged co-
passenger, Abhinas Khatoi, was neither examined during investigation nor produced as a witness, raising serious doubt about the claimants' version.
(iii) The DRM's report and statements of the Guard and Loco Pilot of the relevant trains revealed that no untoward incident was reported on the alleged date of travel. The dead body was detected only the next morning by another train, and no journey ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased during inquest.
(iv) The Tribunal further observed inconsistencies in the claimants' narrative regarding the purpose and timing of the alleged journey and noted that the deceased was a resident of an area close to the place of occurrence, making the possibility of trespassing on railway tracks plausible.
(v) In view of these contradictions and lack of cogent evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that no untoward incident had occurred. Consequently, Issues relating to liability under Section 124-A Page 9 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41 were decided in favour of the Railway Administration, and the claim application was dismissed.
V. THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:
6. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 calls in question the judgment dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, whereby the claim application filed by the appellants seeking compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 was dismissed. At the threshold, it must be borne in mind that the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 23 is confined to examination of substantial questions of law. Findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are not to be interfered with merely because another view is possible, unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by disregard of material evidence. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi(supra) has unequivocally held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot re- appreciate evidence as a court of first instance.Applying the aforesaid principles, the first and foundational question that arises for consideration is whether the appellants have established that the death of the deceased occurred due to an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
7. An accidental fall from a train carrying passengers is the sine qua non for attracting the said provision. In the present case, the Tribunal Page 10 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41 has found that there is no direct or independent evidence to demonstrate that the deceased fell from the alleged train. No eyewitness has been examined either during investigation or before the Tribunal. No report of any passenger falling from Train No. 18477 was made to the Guard, Loco Pilot, or Station Master on the alleged date of occurrence. The dead body was detected only on the following morning by another train and not contemporaneously with the alleged incident. The alleged co-passenger, though named by the claimants, was neither examined during investigation nor produced before the Tribunal. These circumstances, taken cumulatively, create a serious dent in the appellants' version of an accidental fall from a running train.
8. The reliance placed by the appellants on the inquest report and the final police report has been duly considered by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the conclusions recorded therein are largely founded on statements of family members and not on any independent material. It is well settled that while police reports may have persuasive value, they are not conclusive proof of an untoward incident in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court in Jamirul Nisha v. Union of India(supra)has held that mere recovery of a dead body on railway premises does not ipso facto establish an accidental fall from a train. In the absence of proof connecting the death to a specific train Page 11 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41 journey, the Tribunal's conclusion that an untoward incident was not established cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse.
9. The next crucial issue pertains to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989. Admittedly, no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased during the inquest. No documentary evidence was adduced to establish purchase of a ticket. The testimony of A.W.1, the father of the deceased, regarding possession of a valid journey ticket is uncorroborated by any independent evidence. Though it is true that loss of ticket in the course of an accident is not uncommon and strict proof of ticket may not be insisted upon in every case, the initial burden of establishing circumstances indicative of lawful travel still lies on the claimants. In Union of India v. Rina Devi(supra), the Supreme Court clarified that the presumption of bona fide travel arises only after foundational facts are proved.
10.In the present case, the Tribunal has also taken note of inconsistencies regarding the purpose and timing of the alleged journey and the fact that the deceased was a resident of an area proximate to the place of occurrence, thereby rendering the possibility of track crossing a plausible alternative. These are factual inferences drawn from the record and do not disclose any perversity warranting appellate interference.
Page 12 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jan-2026 17:01:41
11.Once the appellants have failed to establish both the occurrence of an untoward incident and the bona fide passenger status of the deceased, the question of fastening strict liability on the Railway Administration under Section 124-A of the Railways Act does not arise. The burden of proving the foundational requirements for invoking Section 124-A lies squarely on the claimants, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra). That burden, in the considered view of this Court, remains undischarged.
12.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the settled legal position. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The impugned judgment dated 23.09.2019 does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or perversity warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
13.There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr.Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Dec., 2025/ Page 13 of 13