FAO No.14 of 2022 Page 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.14 of 2022 (From the judgment and award dated 27th September 2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in Case No.OA- IIU/85/2018) Godabari Parida … Appellant -versus- Union of India … Respondent Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Appellant : Ms.D.Mohapatra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.M.Pattanayak, CGC CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 6th February, 2026 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Present appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th September 2021 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in Case No.OA-IIU/85/2018, wherein the prayer of the Appellant (claimant) for compensation of death of his wife, namely, Goli Parida arising out of Railway accident, has been refused. Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04 Signature Not Verified FAO No.14 of 2022 p. 2 2. Heard Ms.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Pattanayak, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent-Union of India. 3. The case of the claimant is that her wife, namely, Goli Parida while travelling in Berhampur-Bhubaneswar DMU passenger Train No.58412 from Huma to Balugaon Railway Station on 28th January 2018, she accidently fell down at Balugaon Railway Station and died. 4. The claim application was filed on 7th May 2018. Railways Authorities have denied the claim of Appellant and according to them, the deceased while trespassing the railway track at the time of incident on 28th January 2018 was hit by DMJ-BTAP, a goods train at KM No.525/4-5 and died. As per the report prepared by DRM, the On- duty Gate Keeper reported the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Balugaon Railway Station on 28th January 2018 that two women, aged about 55 years, while trace-passing the railway track illegally, were dashed by the Goods train and died. So, according to the contentions of Railways, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation since the deceased was neither a valid passenger of the train nor did she die due to any fault on the part of the Railway. Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04 Signature Not Verified FAO No.14 of 2022 p. 3 5. Admittedly, the claimant has examined himself as AW 1 and two other witnesses as AW 2 and 3 in support of his case. He further adduced the inquest report, postmortem examination report and the identity proof of the deceased before the Tribunal. The respondent- Railways on the other hand examined one witness as RW 1, who is a RPF personnel, and adduced the copy of the FIR and other police papers as well as the DRM’s statutory report. 6. The dead body of the deceased was found at KM No.525/4-5 in Balugaon Railway Station yard as mentioned in the inquest report. She was found sustaining with several bodily injuries consistent with the railway accident according to the postmortem examination report. 7. As per the postmortem examination report, the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage and all such injuries found on the body are consistent with falling track accident. It needs to be stated here that on 28th January 2018, Khorda GRPS U.D.Case No.07/2018 was registered on the report of death of the deceased and the dead body was found lying between Track No.3 & 2 at Balugaon Railway Station. 8. The eyewitness Viz. AW 3 says in his evidence that, while he was also a passenger in the same train at the same time, saw the Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04 Signature Not Verified FAO No.14 of 2022 p. 4 deceased accidentally falling from the running train before the stopping point of the train at Balugaon Railway Station due to sudden jerk and push of co-passengers. This evidence of AW 3 could not be rebutted in his cross-examination and on the other hand, the Railways have examined their sole witness as RW 1, a RPF personnel, who does not have any direct knowledge about the incident. Said RW 1 is the person who conducted inquiry on behalf of RPF regarding the accident. It is thus seen that when the statement of AW 3 is corroborating to the medical evidence, no direct evidence has been produced from the side of the Railways either to rebut or to contradict the evidence of AW 3 in any manner. 9. The finding of the Tribunal is entirely based on the enquiry report prepared by DRM without any reference to the evidences adduced on record. It is true that statutory inquiry report prepared by the DRM carries the statutory presumption under Section 191 of the Railways Act. But such presumption attached to the report of the DRM is subject to the evidence produced on record in a claim case for compensation. When the direct evidence is speaking about the cause and nature of the accident, the same has to prevail over the finding given in the report of the DRM subject to production of rebuttal Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04 Signature Not Verified FAO No.14 of 2022 p. 5 evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs- Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 has observed as follows: "mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the 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". 10. The untoward incident as defined in Section 123 of the Railways Act reads as follows: “(c) “untoward incident” means— (1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room14 or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04 Signature Not Verified FAO No.14 of 2022 p. 6 11. It is true that no valid ticket could be produced on behalf of the claimant to satisfy the requirement of the journey of the Petitioner in the train in question at the time of accident. But the same cannot be the sole determining factor for grant of compensation or to opine that the death is not coming under the definition of untoward. As seen from the given facts of the present case, the consistent statements and evidence of the claimant, supported with police papers, that the deceased died due to accidental fall from the running train without her fault. When no suspicious material is brought on record contrary to such evidence adduced by the claimant and the Railways have failed to produce any such evidence in rebuttal to discard the contentions of the claimant, no scope is left for the Tribunal to opine that the accident is not due to any untoward incident, merely basing on the report prepared by the DRM. 12. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 27th September 2021 is set aside and the Respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight lakhs) as per the schedule along with interest @6% per annum payable from the date of the accident. The entire compensation amount shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2026 17:46:04 FAO No.14 of 2022 p. 7 13. The appeal is disposed of as allowed. ( B.P. Routray) Judge C.R.Biswal, A.R.-cum-Sr.Seretary