Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27305 (ORI)

Bidulata Swain v. Union of India

2026-01-22

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

body2026
JUDGMENT : Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present First Appeal (FAO) has been filed by the appellant assailing the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A. No.291 of 2017, whereby the Original Application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of her husband was dismissed. I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i. It is the case of the appellant that while her husband and son were travelling from Cuttack to Balasore by Gurudev Express after purchasing general tickets, they boarded a general compartment which was overcrowded. As no seats were available, they were standing near the door of the compartment. ii. While the said train was passing through Soro Railway Station, the deceased fell from the running train due to jostling among co- passengers in the overcrowded compartment, sustained injuries and subsequently died. iii. The appellant filed O.A. No. 291 of 2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of her husband. The said Original Application was initially dismissed, whereafter the appellant preferred FAO No. 142 of 2020 before this Court. iv. By order dated 24.11.2022, this Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties. v. Upon remand, the Tribunal reheard the matter and, by the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2023, dismissed the Original Application, holding that the incident did not constitute an untoward incident and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. vi. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE A PPELLANT 3. Learned counsel for the appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal dealt with the Original Application in a hyper-technical manner without properly appreciating the evidence on record and thereby arrived at an erroneous conclusion in dismissing the claim. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. ii. The appellant further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the veracity of the evidence adduced by the claimant and instead placed undue reliance on the version of the respondent. iii. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. ii. The appellant further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the veracity of the evidence adduced by the claimant and instead placed undue reliance on the version of the respondent. iii. The learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the factual matrix, disbelieved the evidence adduced by the appellant despite the specific assertion in the Original Application that the appellant’s younger son was travelling along with the deceased. Instead, the learned Tribunal placed reliance on the statement of the Loco Pilot, who failed to produce the duty chart of the relevant day. iv. The appellant further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in relying upon the statement of the Loco Pilot, who failed to assign any reason for not reporting the incident, as required under Rule 3 of the Railways Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, at the nearest railway station, namely, Soro Railway Station. The appellant submitted that the materials relied upon by the respondent appear to have been prepared as an afterthought. v. The learned Tribunal accepted the version of the Loco Pilot despite his own statement that the train was detained near Soro Railway Station after the occurrence, whereas the matter was reported only at Balasore Railway Station. It was further contended that the Station Master of Soro Railway Station did not visit the spot, which casts doubt on the reliability of the version relied upon by the Tribunal. The appellant also submitted that she was deprived of an effective opportunity to adduce evidence at the time of the initial dismissal of the Original Application. vi. The learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application in a mechanical manner without properly considering the evidence adduced by the appellant. The impugned order dated 20.09.2023 is, therefore, liable to be set aside. III.S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE R ESPONDENT 4. Learned counsel for the respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The respondent submitted that the averments made by the appellant in the Original Application are false and fabricated and fall beyond the scope of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. ii. Learned counsel for the respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The respondent submitted that the averments made by the appellant in the Original Application are false and fabricated and fall beyond the scope of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. ii. The respondents further asserted that there is a direct eyewitness to the alleged incident, who has categorically deposed that the deceased, without using the foot overbridge for crossing the railway track from Platform No. 1 to Platform No. 2, attempted to cross the track at the surface by committing trespass and was hit by a running train, resulting in his death. iii. The respondents contended that the incident is a clear case of death arising out of an act of criminal negligence on the part of the deceased and that the respondent Railway is squarely protected under the exception provided in Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, and is, therefore, not liable to pay any compensation. iv. The respondents further submitted that, as per the inquest report, the deceased was not holding a valid journey ticket at the time of the incident and that the plea of loss of the journey ticket is wholly false. IV.F INDINGS O F T HE R AILWAY C LAIMS T RIBUNAL , B HUBANESWAR 5. The learned Tribunal, upon hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, framed the following issues for determination: a) Whether the death of deceased was due to any untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c) of the Railways Act 1989? b) Whether the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger of the train at the time of occurrence of the untoward incident? c) Whether the Applicant entitled to get compensation u/s 124 A of the Railways Act 1989? d) Whether the Applicants are the dependents of the deceased to receive the compensation as claimed? e) To what relief the Applicants are entitled to? 6. The learned Tribunal noted that while the claimants alleged that the deceased fell from an overcrowded general compartment of Gurudev Express due to push and pull of passengers, the said version was not supported by any independent contemporaneous evidence. The Tribunal observed that the wife and son of the deceased were not eyewitnesses to the incident and that the testimony of the alleged co-passenger was inconsistent with the surrounding circumstances. 7. The Tribunal observed that the wife and son of the deceased were not eyewitnesses to the incident and that the testimony of the alleged co-passenger was inconsistent with the surrounding circumstances. 7. The learned Tribunal placed reliance on the evidence of the Loco Pilot, who deposed that the deceased was run over while trespassing on the railway track at Soro Railway Station and that the incident was immediately reported through official channels. The Tribunal further relied upon station diary entries and investigation reports, holding that such records were admissible in evidence under Section 191 of the Railways Act, 1989. 8. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the claimants that the incident was a case of accidental fall from the running train, observing that it was not possible for a person falling from a compartment located behind the engine to suffer a frontal hit by the locomotive. It was further noted that there was no report of alarm chain pulling or any immediate reporting by co-passengers, despite the incident having allegedly occurred during daylight hours. 9. The learned Tribunal also held that the deceased was not established to be a bona fide passenger, as no journey ticket was recovered and the plea of loss of ticket was not supported by convincing evidence. 10. In view of the above findings, the learned Tribunal concluded that the death of the deceased did not arise out of an untoward incident but was covered by the exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Accordingly, the Original Application was dismissed. V. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. At the outset, it would be apposite to advert to the statutory framework governing claims for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. 13. Accordingly, the Original Application was dismissed. V. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. At the outset, it would be apposite to advert to the statutory framework governing claims for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. 13. Section 123(c) defines an “untoward incident” and is replicated hereinunder: “123(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, cloakroom 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.” 14. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for compensation on account of untoward incidents. The provision stipulates that when, in the course of working a railway, an untoward incident occurs, the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation for death or injury to a passenger, subject to the exceptions enumerated in the proviso thereto. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for compensation on account of untoward incidents. The provision stipulates that when, in the course of working a railway, an untoward incident occurs, the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation for death or injury to a passenger, subject to the exceptions enumerated in the proviso thereto. The section is provided hereinunder: “124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.—When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to— (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “passenger” includes—a railway servant on duty; and a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.” 15. A conjoint reading of Sections 123(c) and 124-A makes it clear that the statutory scheme is founded on the principle of strict or no-fault liability. Once the occurrence falls within the description of an untoward incident, compensation must ordinarily follow, unless the Railway Administration clearly establishes that the case falls within one of the statutory exceptions. 16. The legal position in this regard is no longer res integra. Once the occurrence falls within the description of an untoward incident, compensation must ordinarily follow, unless the Railway Administration clearly establishes that the case falls within one of the statutory exceptions. 16. The legal position in this regard is no longer res integra. In Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. South-East Central Railways , (2019) 12 SCC 387 , the Supreme Court observed that Section 124-A warrants payment of compensation whenever an untoward incident occurs, whether or not such incident has occurred due to any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. 17. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar , (2008) 9 SCC 527 , the Supreme Court held that the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” in Section 123(c) cannot be construed narrowly or restrictively. The relevant observation reads as under: “14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.” 18. It is also well settled that mere non-recovery of a journey ticket does not ipso facto negate the claim of the deceased being a bona fide passenger. Once the claimant discharges the initial burden by placing relevant facts on record, the onus shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the same. 19. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 observed: “29. Once the claimant discharges the initial burden by placing relevant facts on record, the onus shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the same. 19. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 observed: “29. 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.” 20. Tested on the aforesaid legal position, this Court now proceeds to examine whether the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference. 21. Pursuant to the remand by this Court, the learned Tribunal afforded full opportunity of hearing to both parties and undertook a comprehensive reconsideration of the claim. 22. During the rehearing, the Loco Pilot of the train, the then Station Master of Soro Railway Station and the present Station Master were examined and subjected to cross-examination at the instance of the claimants. 23. The learned Tribunal noted that the wife and son of the deceased, examined as AW-1 and AW-2 respectively, were not eyewitnesses to the incident. The testimony of AW-3, the alleged co-passenger, was carefully scrutinised and was found to be inconsistent with the surrounding circumstances and the contemporaneous records. 24. On the other hand, the evidence of the Loco Pilot, examined as CW-1, disclosed that the deceased suddenly appeared in front of the engine while attempting to cross the railway track at Soro Railway Station and was hit by the train. The testimony of the Loco Pilot remained unshaken in cross-examination and was corroborated by station diary entries, investigation reports and the inquest report. 25. The testimony of the Loco Pilot remained unshaken in cross-examination and was corroborated by station diary entries, investigation reports and the inquest report. 25. The learned Tribunal relied upon the station diary entries and other railway records, which are admissible in evidence in terms of Section 191 of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal further recorded cogent reasons explaining the reporting of the incident at Balasore, noting that the Gurudev Express did not have a scheduled stoppage at Soro and that, after application of brakes, the train would have come to a halt at a distance ahead, making such reporting a logical consequence. 26. A significant factor weighed by the Tribunal was the physical improbability of the version projected by the claimants. The Tribunal recorded a reasoned finding that a person falling from a compartment situated behind the engine could not have suffered a frontal impact with the locomotive. This finding, based on physical probability, directly undermined the plea of accidental fall from the running train. 27. The Tribunal also took note of the absence of any alarm chain pulling or immediate reporting by co-passengers, despite the incident having allegedly occurred during daylight hours and in an overcrowded compartment. These circumstances, taken cumulatively, were found to be inconsistent with the version advanced by the claimants. 28. On the issue of bona fide passenger status, the Tribunal did not rest its conclusion merely on the non-recovery of the journey ticket. The finding was arrived at upon an evaluation of the overall factual matrix, including the manner of occurrence and the lack of credible corroboration in support of the plea that the deceased fell from the train during travel. 29. The material on record establishes that the deceased was unauthorisedly present on the railway track at the time of the incident. Unauthorised crossing or presence on railway tracks constitutes trespass and is an offence under the Railways Act, 1989. Such conduct involves voluntary exposure to a known and obvious risk associated with the movement of trains. Where death or injury results from such conduct, the same squarely falls within the scope of clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, namely, self-inflicted injury and death arising from one’s own criminal act. 30. Such conduct involves voluntary exposure to a known and obvious risk associated with the movement of trains. Where death or injury results from such conduct, the same squarely falls within the scope of clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, namely, self-inflicted injury and death arising from one’s own criminal act. 30. The Railway Administration has discharged its burden of establishing the applicability of the statutory exceptions by leading direct and contemporaneous evidence, including the testimony of the Loco Pilot, station diary entries and the inquest report. The cumulative effect of this evidence reasonably supports the conclusion that the death did not arise out of an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c). 31. This Court is conscious that Section 124-A of the Railways Act is a welfare provision and that claims thereunder are not to be defeated on hyper-technical grounds. However, where the material on record reasonably supports the conclusion that the death fell within the statutory exceptions, the Tribunal is justified in declining compensation. 32. This Court finds that the conclusions reached by the learned Tribunal are founded on a careful appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and constitute a possible and plausible view. No perversity or legal infirmity has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. VI. C ONCLUSION 33. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. 34. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed . The impugned judgment dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A. No. 291 of 2017 is hereby affirmed. 35. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.