1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury F.M.A. 123 of 2021 Sulochana Bibi & Anr. VERSUS Union of India & Ors. For the appellants/claimants: For the Union of India: Mr. Saswata Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sima Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Rituparna Mondak, Adv. Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Manabendu Bandopadhyay, Adv. Last Heard on: September 10, 2026 Judgment on: September 25, 2026 Biswaroop Chowdhury,J: The appellants before this Court were applicants in a case under Section 124A of Railways Act 1989, and are aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 3rd January 2020 passed by Learned Railway Claim Tribunal Kolkata in OA.(11U)Kol/2016/0146. The case of the appellants/applicants before the learned Tribunal may be summed up thus:- 2 On 09-07-2015 at early morning Local Train (Sealdah-Lalgola) accident happened at Sargachi Station. Deceased Sarful SK. boarded UP Local Train (Sealdah) from Sealdah Station to Sargachi Station on 8.7.15 at night for returning his home Debpur Village under Beldanga Police Station, District – Murshidabad but when said Train reached at Sargachi station platform No. 2 in the early morning and due to heavy rush and jerking he was forced to get down hurriedly and inadvertently fell down on platform No-2 Train Track line and accident happened by the said train as a result death occurred. Case was started Ref. Berhampore Court GRPS UD Case No. 25/15. Dated 09.07.15. As per Post mortem report cause of death was due to the effect of injuries which were antemortem in nature. Post Mortem Report was prepared by Dr. Md. Mahboob Hossain, Demonstrator Department of FSM, Murshidabad Medical College and Hospital. A Surthal Report also was prepared by Amarendranath Mondal SI Berhampore Court, GRPS Murshidabad dated 09.07.15 in presence of three local witnesses and a Railway Ticket seized by concerned S.I. which was No. 20607276. And/or (30607276) dated 08.07.2015 journey from Sealdaha to Sargachi Railway Station from pocket of dead body. The dead body was handed over to Mahosin Ali son of Late Haji Haraj Ali of village and post office – Debpur, Police Station-Beldanga, District-Murshidabad uncle of deceased for cremation after holding P.M. and proper identification dated 09.07.2015. The claim case was contested by the Respondent Union of India. 3 By Judgment and Award dated 03.01.2020 the Learned Railway Claim Tribunal disposed the claim case by observing and directing as follows:- ‘During Surathal, journey ticket bearing no. 20607276, dated 08.07.2015 ex-Sealdah to Sargachi which is in the UP direction. If the deceased was supposed to have been travelling by train no. 63134 Dn it is evident that the deceased was not in possession of a valid journey authority and he was not a bona-fide passenger in a train when the incident resulting in his death took place. Considering the factual elements coming out from the discussion these issues are answered in favour of the respondent by holding that there was no untoward incident involving the victim as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act 1989. In view of the foregoing those issues do not merit further consideration. ORDER. The case is dismissed with no order as to costs.’ The appellants/applicants being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Learned Tribunal have come up with the instant appeal. Heard Learned Advocate for the appellants and Learned Advocate for the respondent. Perused the materials on record. 4 Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that from post mortem report and seizure of railway ticket from the possession of deceased person it will go to show that deceased was bona-fide passenger and thus the incident falls under category of untoward incident. Learned Advocate further submits that the claimant examined herself as a witness and she stated how the accident took place, and in cross- examination also she re-iterated about the accident taking place at Sargachi Station and that her husband was travelling from Sealdah to Sargachi. Learned Advocate also submits that the Learned Tribunal erred in passing the award without considering the guidelines of the Supreme Court in different judicial decisions Learned Advocate relies upon the following Judicial decisions:- Union of India VS Rina Devi Reported in (2019) 3 SCC-572. Union of India VS Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar Reported in (2008) 9 SCC-527. Learned Advocate for the respondent Railway Authority submits that it is an admitted position that the journey ticket placed on record by the Appellant is exclusively valid for travel in the UP direction. Concurrently it is a matter of static operational record that the incident took place involving Train No. 63134 DN. (Lalgola to Ranaghat MEMU) which operates strictly in the Down (DN) 5 direction. Consequently the deceased cannot be categorized as a bona-fide passenger in relation to the offending train under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act 1989. Learned Advocate further submits that the Appellants’ Hypothesis of an accidental fall is shattered by the contemporaneous official document on record the instant memo issued by the train guard of Train No-63134 DN. on the dateof the incident i.e. 09.07-2015. The Train Guard unequivocally logged that an unknown person was knocked down by his train.’ Learned Advocate also submits that the Learned Tribunal by well reasoned judgment dismissed the claim of the appellants. Before proceeding to decide on the issue it is to be remembered that in case of untoward incident the family members of victim cannot arrange for witnesses who have seen the incident unless members of the family travel with the victim. Thus the family of the victim has to depend upon the report of Police Authority and Railway Authority. Now upon perusal of the Surathal Report it appears that on enquiry Police Authority found that said deceased due to heavy rush and jerking during getting down, from DN-63134 train at Sargachi station inadvertently fell down in PF no. 2 train track line and accident happened by the said train. Upon perusal of the report submitted by Police Authority under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is stated by the Police Authority that 6 the deceased while attempting to get down from DN-63134 passenger fell down from DN-63134 passenger. Upon perusal of the Enquiry report dated 19th January 2017 of the Divisional Railway Manager Sealdah it appears that following observation was made. ‘Further it could be learnt from the Surathal report of GRPS/BPC that while deceased Sarful Sekh was trying to get down from train no. 63134 DN (SDAH-LGC Passenger) at Sargachi Railway inadvertently fell down in Railway track on PF No-02 and run over by the said train and died on the spot. One Railway ticket bearing no. 20607276 dated 08.07.15 ex-SDAH to SVG was recovered from his possession. Considering the above facts and circumstances IPF/BPC opined that the incident occurred due to his own carelessness/negligence. No foul play has been mentioned by GRPS/BPS which means no liabilities with Railways. Hence DRM/SDAH is requested to refer the case to CCM/Kolkata for submitting the same to the concerned bench of Rly claim Tribunal for further course of action please.’ Thus upon combined reading of the report of the Police Authority as well as Railway Authority falling down from train is admitted. However Railway Authority refused to pay compensation on the ground that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the victim. 7 Although case of the claimants does not fully tally with the report of the Police Authority and the Railway Authority as contention of the claimants was that the victim fell down from the up train, but as per report of Police Authority and Railway Authority victim fell down from the down train but as Railway Claim is not a an adversarial litigation and Railway Claim Legislation is a beneficial legislation where it appears from Enquiry Report of Police Authority and Railway Authority, about untoward incident necessary steps should be taken by the Railway Authority to pay compensation to the victim or his family members in accordance with law, or make ex-gratia payment as per rules. When an untoward incident of falling down from the train has taken place the plea of negligence of the victim does not come up for consideration as negligence does not come under the provision of exception in Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989. In the case of Union of India VS Prabhakumar Vijaya Kumar reported in (2008) 9 SCC P-527 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- ‘12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembie Chemical works co. ltd. V Workmen (AIR Para 7) Jeawanlal Ltd. V Appellate Authority (AIR 8 Para 11) Lalappa Lingappa V Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. 6 (AIR-Para 13) S.M. Nilajkar V Telecom District Manager7 (SCC Para 12).‟ The Hon’ble Court further observed as follows: „43. In India Article 38(1) of the Constitution States „the state shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice social economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the national life.‟ Thus it is the duty of the state under our Constitution to function as a Welfare State and look after the welfare of all its citizens.‟ 44. In various social welfare statutes the principle of strict liability has been provided to give insurance to people against death and injuries irrespective of fault.‟ Now the point for consideration is whether non-recovery of ticket of down train from possession of deceased is fatal and a ground to refuse compensation. In this regard the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India VS Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC-572 observed as follows:- ‘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 9 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 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.‟ In the case of Anamika Halder (Pal) and ors. VS Union of India (FMA- 1152 of 2025) Calcutta High Court it was observed as follows:- „In many cases of Railway untoward incident where ticket could not be recovered from victim reliance can be placed on oral evidence. Normally a person does not dare to travel without ticket for the fear of being caught and punished. Moreover when a passenger has to face Travelling Ticket Examiner or ticket collector he is bound to produce the ticket but when the person is dead he should not be charged with the allegation that he was travelling without ticket and he will not be in a position to defend himself. A person usually keeps his ticket either in money purse or shirt pocket. Merely because ticket is not found a dead person cannot be said to be a ticketless traveller. In the event there is a reasonable doubt the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the victim‟s family.‟ In the case of Dasari Laxmi VS Union of India reported in AIR-2003 AP-56 the Hon‟ble Court observed as follows:- „8‟ In order to decide the above it is to be considered on whom the burden lies. Is it on the claimant or on the Respondent authorities who wants to deny the 10 liability? In Order to prove that burden lies on the Railways, the Appellant relied upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Raj Kumari VS Union of India (1993 ACC CT 846) (supra). In that case, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had an occasion to consider similar issue with reference to a claim under Section 82A of the Old Act, which corresponds to Section 124 of course Section 124A was inserted for the first time in the year 1994, under which the compensation payble on account of untoward incident was specifically incorporated. Similarly under Section 123 the term untoward incident was also defined so as to include even the accidental falling of any passenger under a train carrying passengers. The Division Bench after considering the rival contentions and also referring to some of the relevant provisions of the Railways Act, which specifically prohibits travelling without ticket which would in fact result in imposing of punishment of imprisonment or fine and concluded that the burden is on the Railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “The main question that arises in this case is on whom the onus of proof lies in such claim cases and whether any presumption under the Evidence Act can be raised. Normally under Section 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, the burden to prove such facts on which the legal right or liability depends is on such person who asserts existence of these facts. But the question before us is whether the burden of proof that the deceased held a valid ticket pass or permission during his journey in which he died in accident can be placed on his 11 dependents. Obviously such burden of proof is impossible to be discharged by the dependents who can have no means of knowledge whether the deceased before boarding the train, had purchased a valid ticket, pass as permission from the railway authorities. It is likely that such a deceased passenger held a valid ticket pass or permission, but the same is lost in the accident with the death of person and loss of his belongings if any.” In the case of Gullipalli Lakshmikanthamma VS G.M. South Railway Secunderabad reported in 2000(4) Andh. LT-344 the Hon‟ble Court observed as follows:- „After considering the same, I am of the opinion that an inference can be drawn to the effect that the deceased is a bona-fide passenger having regard to the realities and realistic and pragmatic approach of the question involved. It cannot invariably be conceived or comprehended that always ticket should be traced. One has to imagine the circumstances that will prevail at the relevant time and whether keeping of the ticket should be given that much of importance at the crucial time when the deceased was suffering from fatal injuries died the ticket could have been missing. So from the material on record it must be found that the deceased is a bona-fide passenger.‟ In the instant case ticket of previous date 8/07/2015 was found from the possession of deceased person which will go to show that he had the habit of purchasing ticket. Tickets may be kept in Shirt pocket, Pant Pocket or in purse or it may be misplaced in course of journey thus non-availability of ticket from 12 possession of deceased person is no ground to hold always that he was not a bona-fide passenger. Thus in the facts and circumstances this Court is of the view that appellants have been able to establish that death of the victim is an untoward incident. The appellants are thus entitled to the compensation as prayed for. Hence this Appeal FMA-139 of 2020 stands allowed. Judgment and Award dated 3rd day of Journey 2020 passed by Learned Railway Claim Tribunal Kolkata Bench in Claim Application No. OA(11u)KoL/2016/0146 is set aside. The Appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 400,000/- from the Respondent. The Respondent Railway Authority shall deposit Rs. 400,000/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from date of filing claim case till today. Such deposit shall be made before Registrar General High Court at Calcutta. The Appellants will be entitled to withdraw the compensation upon compliance of necessary formalities. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)