Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.272 of 2021 (An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.) Api Nahak …. Appellant (s) -versus- Union of India …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sambit Das, Adv. For Respondent (s) : Mr. D.N. Pattanaik, Sr. P.C. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-03.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-09.01.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The appeal arises out of a judgment dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 182 of 2017, whereby the claim application was dismissed. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the appellants are as follows: i. In O.A. No. 182 of 2017, the claimant/appellant Api Nahak sought statutory compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (as claimed in the application, with interest stated therein) on account of the death of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 2 his son Mitu Nahak, stated to have occurred on 02.09.2015 in an incident involving the Train No. 16382, Cape-Mumbai Express. ii. The claimant’s case before the Tribunal was that the deceased had allegedly purchased a passenger ticket and was travelling on 02.09.2015 from Kottayam Railway Station towards Tirupati Railway Station by the said train, and that he fell down from the running train near the southern side of Ernakulam North Over- Bridge, resulting in his death. iii. It is pleaded that, in connection with the death, Central Police Station, Ernakulam registered Case No. 1578 dated 02.09.2015. iv. The Railway Administration entered appearance in the Tribunal proceeding and contested the claim. Its pleaded defence was that the death was a case of suicidal run-over and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; it was further pleaded that the occurrence did not qualify as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. v. Evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimants. The mother of the deceased filed an affidavit and was examined as A.W.1, and one Bibacha Nahak was examined as A.W.2; both were cross- examined by the Railway Administration. vi. As pleaded in the appeal memorandum, the Railway Administration did not examine any witness before the Tribunal, including the alleged eye-witness referred to by the appellants as Babu Thomas, or any enquiry officer. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 3 vii. The Tribunal framed issues and thereafter pronounced judgment on 06.09.2021, dismissing the claim application. The appellants contend that the dismissal was arrived at without adequate discussion of the evidence on record (this contention being a matter for consideration in the merits). viii. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal seeking setting aside of the Tribunal’s judgment dated 06.09.2021 and consequential reliefs. The appeal also contains a prayer for enhanced compensation/interest, which will be dealt with as per law at the stage of relief, if any. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2021 on the ground that the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on mere presumptions and conjectures, without proper appreciation of the evidence adduced on record. ii. It was contended that the Tribunal proceeded on an assumed probability that the death of the deceased was either suicidal or the result of a run-over, and further presumed that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, despite there being no legally admissible evidence led by the Railway Administration to substantiate such conclusions. According to the appellant, the findings recorded by Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 4 the Tribunal are perverse, contrary to law, and liable to be set aside. iii. It was argued that the appellant had discharged their initial burden by leading oral evidence before the Tribunal. The mother of the deceased was examined as A.W.1, and Bibacha Nahak was examined as A.W.2, who categorically deposed that the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket at Kottayam Railway Station and had travelled in the Cape–Mumbai Express on 02.09.2015. A.W.2 further stated that he had travelled with the deceased up to Ernakulam, after which the deceased continued his journey towards Tirupati. According to the appellants, this evidence clearly established that the deceased was travelling by the said train and that his body was subsequently found near the railway track. It was submitted that such evidence was neither discredited nor rebutted by any positive evidence from the Railway Administration. iv. Learned counsel emphasized that although the Railway Administration relied upon the police report and the DRM report suggesting a case of suicidal run-over based on the version of an alleged eye-witness, namely Babu Thomas, neither the said eye- witness nor any RPF or railway enquiry officer was examined before the Tribunal. It was contended that, despite several opportunities, the Railway Administration chose not to lead any oral evidence in support of its written statement. In such circumstances, the Tribunal, it was argued, erred in accepting the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 5 Railway’s version without the same being proved in accordance with law, and in discarding the appellants’ evidence without adequate reasons. v. It was further submitted that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the incident was a case of suicide or run-over is legally unsustainable. The appellants contended that in a genuine case of suicide or run-over by a running train, the incident would ordinarily come to the notice of the loco pilot or some independent witness, yet no such witness was examined by the Railway Administration. According to the appellants, the absence of evidence from the loco pilot or any other railway official militates against the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal. vi. The appellant also criticized the reliance placed by the Technical Member of the Tribunal on the decision in Dharambiri Devi v. Ministry of Railway1 to hold that the body could not have been severed if the deceased had fallen from a running train. It was argued that such reasoning overlooks later judicial pronouncements, including Sudha Choudhary v. Union of India2, which recognize that no precise trajectory of a body falling from a train can be predetermined and that multiple variables, including impact with railway infrastructure, may influence the condition and final location of the body. The appellants contended that the Tribunal misapplied precedent and adopted a rigid and unrealistic approach. 1 149 (2008) DLT 435 2 2014 (4) T.A.C. 547 (Del) Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 6 vii. On the issue of bona fide passenger status, it was submitted that the Tribunal failed to apply its judicial mind to the statutory scheme under the Railways Act, 1989. Learned counsel argued that even in cases of ticketless travel, the Act contemplates levy of excess fare and penalty, which by itself does not negate the status of a passenger for the purposes of Sections 123(c) and 124-A. It was further contended that, in light of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the initial burden lay on the Railway Administration to prove that the deceased was travelling without a valid ticket, particularly when the deceased had died during the course of railway travel and his body had come into the custody of the railway police. In the absence of any such evidence from the Railway Administration, and in view of the affirmative testimony of A.W.2 regarding purchase of the ticket, the finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger was asserted to be legally untenable. viii. Lastly, it was argued that there exists a presumption of innocence in favour of a passenger under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and that ticketless travel being a penal offence under Section 138 of the Railways Act, the burden squarely rested on the Railway Administration to prove such illegality. It was submitted that nothing prevented the Railway authorities from producing evidence of checking, detection, or any contemporaneous record to establish unauthorized travel, which they failed to do. On these grounds, the appellant urged that the impugned judgment suffers Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 7 from serious legal infirmities and warrants interference by this Court. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. Learned counsel for the respondent–Railway Administration supported the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2021 passed in O.A. (IIU) No. 182 of 2017 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, and submitted that the appeal is devoid of merit. ii. It was argued that the Tribunal, upon hearing the parties and scrutinizing the materials on record, correctly dismissed the claim after recording findings that (i) the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and (ii) the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 so as to attract compensation under Section 124-A. iii. The respondent contended that the deceased did not fall from the Cape–Mumbai Express as alleged, but rather committed suicide on the railway track by intentionally and wilfully coming in front of a train. It was submitted that the loco pilot of the train is stated to be an eye-witness to the incident, and the very nature of the occurrence, as reflected in the contemporaneous records, rules out an accidental fall from a passenger train. Emphasis was placed on the fact that during inquest and related proceedings, no journey ticket or travel authority was recovered from the deceased, which, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 8 according to the respondent, materially supports the plea that the deceased was not a rail commuter travelling by the said train. iv. It was further argued that the DRM investigation report and the final report of the local police establish that the case is one of suicide/run-over and not an accidental fall. The respondent submitted that the police final report refers to an eye-witness, Babu Thomas, who purportedly stated that the deceased committed suicide by lying down on the track in front of a goods train. The respondent also referred to statements recorded during enquiry, including that of a Senior Goods Guard, to the effect that a crowd was noticed near the track and thereafter the dead body was found run over on the track. It was additionally urged that the police materials record that, two days prior to the incident, the deceased was found in an “off” mood at the work site, which, according to the respondent, lends corroboration to the suicide theory. v. With respect to the oral evidence led by the claimants, the respondent submitted that the testimony of A.W.1 (mother of the deceased) does not advance the claimant’s case since she admittedly is not an eye-witness to the purchase of ticket, the journey, or the alleged fall; her statement, it was argued, is essentially hearsay. As regards A.W.2 (Bibacha Nahak), the respondent contended that he failed to produce his own journey ticket or any travel authority to substantiate his claim of having travelled with the deceased on the relevant date. The respondent further argued that the original claim application did not disclose Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 9 the presence of A.W.2 with the deceased, and that his introduction at a later stage during the proceedings affects the credibility of the claimant’s version. vi. The respondent also relied strongly on the nature of injuries, contending that the deceased suffered decapitation, with the head separated from the trunk, which is inconsistent with an accidental fall from a running train. Reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court decision in Dharambiri Devi (Supra) to submit that such injuries are indicative of suicide/run-over rather than a fall from a train. The respondent submitted that, in an accidental fall, the body would ordinarily be flung away from the track due to forces involved, whereas the injuries here suggest that the body came under the wheels/track impact. vii. On the question of bona fide passenger status and burden of proof, the respondent argued that mere presence of a dead body on railway premises cannot conclusively establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Rina Devi3 to submit that the claimant must prove the foundational facts, including that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that death occurred due to an untoward incident. It was submitted that the burden squarely lies on the claimants to establish an accidental fall from the train within Section 123(c), and only upon such proof does the statutory liability under Section 124- A arise. In the present case, according to the respondent, the 3 (2019) 3 SCC 572 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 10 claimant failed to discharge this burden, particularly in the absence of recovery of ticket and absence of trustworthy evidence of travel and fall. viii. Finally, the respondent submitted that the Tribunal rightly concluded, on the basis of circumstantial and documentary materials, that the case falls under the exceptions (a) to (c) of Section 124-A (as pleaded by the respondent) and therefore no compensation is payable. It was urged that the impugned judgment reflects proper appreciation of evidence and calls for no interference, and that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. IV. FINDINGS OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE RAILWAY TRIBUNAL: 5. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the death of the deceased did not result from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and that the case fell within the statutory exceptions to liability under Section 124-A of the Act. On this basis, it held that the Railway Administration was not liable to pay any compensation and that, once these foundational issues were decided against the claimant, questions relating to dependency and relief did not survive for consideration. 6. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the burden squarely lay on the applicant to establish that the death was caused by an accidental fall from a train. It reasoned that compensation under Section 124-A arises only when the claimant proves that the death occurred due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c), Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 11 and that suicide or self-inflicted injury stands excluded from the statutory scheme. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of such proof, the claimant could not invoke strict liability against the Railways. 7. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence adduced by the claimant. It held that the testimony of A.W.1, the mother of the deceased, was entirely hearsay, as she was not an eye-witness either to the purchase of the ticket, the journey, or the alleged fall from the train. With respect to A.W.2, Bibacha Nahak, the Tribunal found his testimony unreliable on the ground that he failed to produce any journey ticket or travel authority to show that he himself had travelled with the deceased on the relevant date. The Tribunal also attached significance to the fact that the original claim application did not mention his presence with the deceased during the journey and that his introduction at a later stage was viewed as an attempt to bolster the claimant’s case. 8. The Tribunal accepted the defence of the Railway Administration that the deceased had committed suicide or was run over on the track. It placed reliance on the DRM statutory investigation report and the police final report, which referred to statements recorded during enquiry, including that of one Babu Thomas, described as an eye-witness, who allegedly saw the deceased near the track immediately before the passage of a goods train and found him run over thereafter. The Tribunal also relied upon statements recorded from railway personnel during the enquiry and the reference in the police report to the deceased being in a disturbed mental state prior to the incident. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 12 9. A significant factor in the Tribunal’s reasoning was the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased. On a scrutiny of the post-mortem report, the Tribunal noted that the deceased had suffered decapitation from the neck level, with the body found on the track. Relying on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Dharambiri Devi(Supra), the Tribunal held that such injuries could not ordinarily result from an accidental fall from a running train, as a person falling from a train would, due to forward motion and centrifugal force, be flung away from the track rather than remain on it. On this reasoning, the Tribunal concluded that decapitation was consistent only with suicide or a run-over. 10. The Tribunal further relied on the fact that no journey ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased during inquest. Treating this circumstance as corroborative, it held that the absence of a ticket strengthened the conclusion that the deceased was not travelling by any train at the relevant time. In this context, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rina Devi(Supra), to hold that mere presence of a dead body on railway premises is not sufficient to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger for the purpose of claiming compensation. 11. On a cumulative assessment of the circumstantial evidence, the enquiry reports, the post-mortem findings, and the absence of proof of travel, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the deceased died in an untoward incident as defined under the Act. It further held that the case was covered by the exceptions under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and that the claimant was Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 13 therefore not entitled to any compensation. Consequently, the claim application was dismissed on merits without any order as to costs. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 13. The facts are not in serious dispute to the extent that on 02.09.2015 the deceased, Mitu Nahak, died after being run over by a train near the southern side of the Ernakulam North Over-Bridge and that a police case bearing No.1578 of 2015 was registered in connection with the said death. The claimants asserted that the deceased was travelling in the Cape–Mumbai Express from Kottayam to Tirupati and accidentally fell from the train, whereas the Railway Administration set up a defence that the deceased had committed suicide or was run over while trespassing on the railway track and was not travelling as a passenger. 14. Having carefully examined the impugned judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the approach adopted by the Tribunal suffers from serious legal infirmities, both in its appreciation of evidence and in its application of the statutory scheme governing compensation for railway accidents. 15. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act is a statutory liability founded on the principle of strict liability. Once the occurrence of an “untoward incident” is established, compensation follows as a matter of course unless the case squarely falls within one of the exclusionary clauses contained in the proviso to Section 124-A. The proviso carves out limited exceptions such Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 14 as suicide, attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication, insanity, or natural death. These exclusions, being in the nature of exceptions, must be strictly construed. The burden of bringing the case within any of these exclusions squarely rests on the Railway Administration. 16. In the present case, the Tribunal has proceeded as though the entire burden lay upon the claimants to disprove suicide and to establish accidental fall beyond all doubt. Such an approach is wholly inconsistent with the statutory framework and the settled position of law. The Tribunal has relied on suspicion, inference, and conjecture to deny compensation, whereas the law requires clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to attract the exclusionary clauses. 17. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the nature of injuries, particularly the aspect of decapitation, is also legally unsustainable. It is well settled that no rigid or universal rule can be laid down regarding the nature of injuries in cases involving falls from moving trains. The trajectory of a human body falling from a train, the possibility of impact with railway infrastructure, wheels, or track components, and the presence of other moving trains introduce variables that defy simplistic or mechanical assumptions. The more nuanced judicial view, including decisions rendered subsequent to Dharambiri Devi(Supra), recognises that injury patterns by themselves cannot conclusively establish suicide or rule out accidental fall. The Tribunal’s application of a single precedent as a determinative rule, without due regard to factual variability, constitutes a clear error of law. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 15 18. With regard to the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the position of the body was inconsistent with a fall from a running train, it is apposite to note the settled legal position regarding the evidentiary value of medical evidence. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat4, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged… Unless the medical evidence goes so far as to completely rule out all possibilities of injuries occurring in the manner alleged, the testimony of eye- witnesses cannot be discarded.” 19. The aforesaid judgment makes it abundantly clear that medical evidence is primarily corroborative in nature. It can only discredit the version put forth if it completely rules out the possibility of injuries occurring in the manner alleged. In the present case, the medical evidence does not meet this threshold. 20. Equally flawed is the Tribunal’s reliance on the DRM report and the police final report to conclude suicide. A careful reading of these documents reveals that they are, at best, founded on suspicion and untested statements recorded during preliminary enquiry. The alleged eye-witness, whose statement forms the foundation of the suicide theory, was never examined before the Tribunal. No loco pilot, guard, or railway official with direct knowledge of the incident was produced as a witness. Reports prepared during departmental or police enquiries cannot, by 4AIR 1983 SC 484. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 16 themselves, substitute for legally admissible evidence, particularly when they disclose uncertainty regarding the manner of occurrence. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. 21. The Tribunal has also drawn an adverse inference against the claimants solely on the ground that no journey ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased. This reasoning ignores both practical realities and settled legal principles. In cases of fatal railway accidents, tickets are often lost, destroyed, or displaced during the incident or subsequent handling of the body. It is well settled that non-recovery of a ticket is not conclusive. Once the occurrence of an untoward incident is prima facie established, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal, instead of applying this principle, treated the absence of a ticket as determinative, which is legally impermissible. 22. Further, the Tribunal has loosely invoked the exclusion under Section 124-A by referring to “own criminal act” and suicide, without establishing the essential element of intention or mens rea. Negligence, carelessness, or even violation of railway rules does not, by itself, amount to a criminal act so as to attract the exclusion clause. To deny compensation on the ground of suicide or self-inflicted injury, the Railway Administration must establish a conscious and deliberate intention on the part of the deceased to end his life. No such evidence exists on record. A vague reference to the deceased being in a “mood-off state” prior to the incident falls far short of the standard required to discharge this burden. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 17 23. This Court is also mindful of the underlying object of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the compensation provisions of the Railways Act, which are grounded in principles of social justice and social welfare. In a system where millions travel daily under less-than-ideal conditions, the law mandates a liberal and humane interpretation in favour of victims and their dependants. Denial of compensation cannot be based on speculative theories or administrative suspicion, particularly when the Railway Administration itself is unable to present clear, consistent, and legally admissible evidence of suicide or trespass. 24. In the present case, the materials relied upon by the Railway Authorities reflect uncertainty rather than certainty regarding the manner of occurrence. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must necessarily enure to the claimants and not to the Railways. VI. CONCLUSION: 25. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal erred in law in holding that the death of the deceased did not arise out of an untoward incident and in placing an impermissibly high burden upon the claimants. The findings that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the case falls within the exclusions under Section 124-A are accordingly set aside. 26. The respondent Railways is directed to pay the appellant compensation of ₹8,00,000 (Rupees eight lakh) with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim until realization. The compensation amount Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 18 shall be paid within three months from today, to be disbursed through the Railway Claims Tribunal as per law. 27. 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. 28. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 29. Interim orders, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th Jan, 2026/ CUTTACK