Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Cal) 51

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.
Jhuma Rani Pramanick - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondent
F.M.A. 894 of 2018
Decided On : 22-05-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.N. Sukul, Adv. Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Bothra, Adv. Ms. Jayati Chowdhury, Adv. Ms. Sucheta Mitra, Adv.

Compensation for railway accidents is a beneficial provision requiring a liberal interpretation. Where claimants cannot produce eye-witnesses, official police records, including inquest and final investigation reports, serve as sufficient evidence to establish the occurrence of an untoward incident unless the administration provides contradictory proof.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A - Untoward incident - Compensation for death - Beneficial legislation - Liberal approach required - Reliance on police reports where eye-witnesses are unavailable - Duty of administration to conduct inquiry. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 23)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Credibility of police investigation reports - Non-production of travel document - Effect of absence of contradictory evidence presented by administration - Applicability of doctrine of reasonable belief in untoward incidents. (Paras 20, 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought compensation for the death of a family member, alleging a fatal fall from a running train. The initial application was dismissed by the tribunal upon the grounds that there were no eye-witnesses, the original travel ticket was not produced, and there were minor discrepancies in the name of the deceased in various documents.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that requiring eye-witnesses for train accidents is often impractical for claimants. Given the lack of substantive evidence or an official inquiry report from the administration to rebut the claims, the police inquest and final investigation reports, which confirmed an accidental fall and included the recovery of a ticket, constitute sufficient evidence to uphold the validity of the claim.

Issues: The central issues were whether the lack of direct eye-witness testimony and the failure to personally produce a travel ticket could negate a compensation claim under a beneficial statute, and whether official police investigation reports are sufficient to establish the nature of an untoward incident.

Ratio Decidendi: Legislation providing for compensation in case of untoward incidents is beneficial and mandates a liberal, humanitarian construction. When state authorities fail to conduct proper internal inquiries, and claimants are unable to produce eye-witnesses due to the nature of public transit, police reports confirming the accidental nature of an event and the victim's identity are sufficient to warrant compensation, provided there is no evidence to the contrary.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the parties and factual background of the untoward incident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. analysis of the railway claims tribunal's initial dismissal of the claim. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. contentions of appellant and respondent regarding evidence and procedural obligations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. interpretation of section 124a and the duty of railways in adjudicating compensation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. final ruling granting compensation based on the proven occurrence of an untoward incident. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)

Judgment :

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.

1.The appellant before this Court was an applicant in an application under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 read with Section 124-A of Railways Act 1989 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 08-02-2017 passed by Hon’ble Vice-Chairman Railway Claim Tribunal Kolkata Bench in claim Application No. OA (IIU)/Kol/2011/200.

2. The case of the appellant before the Learned Railway Claim Tribunal may be summed up thus:

3. On 25-07-2010 the husband of the applicant since deceased was travelling Ex-Barhampur to Sealdah to fetch gangajal on the head of Lord Shiva from Sherafulli having a valid IInd class railway ticket. Due to over crowded pressure and sudden jerk he accidentally fell from the running train between Krishnanagar City Jn. and Badkulla station. and died on spot. Binay Halder and Somnath Halder Saw the incident Police case was registered at Krishnagar GRPS vide U/D case No-20/2010 dated 25-07-2010.

4. The Union of India Railway Authority filed written objection and denied allegation and contested the case. ISSUES were framed and evidence was adduced.

5. Learned Judge Railway Claim Tribunal upon considering the evidence and hearing the Learned Advocates by Judgment and Award dated 08-02-2011 was pleased to dismiss the claim case by observing as follows:

‘6.4. Evidence of the applicant is self serving. The applicant has not produced the alleged eye-witnesses Binay Halder and Somnath Halder and examined them.

6. There is no cogent evidence furnished on behalf of the applicant which establishes that her husband fell from a train and succumbed to his injuries. No doubt that Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a beneficial legislation. However there is hardly any scope of taking deviation or departure from clear unambiguous provisions of the Act. There is absolutely no evidence to ascertain the cause of death of the applicant’s husband was due to fall from a running train. Tribunal must pay an obedience to the provisions of law and cannot grant claims in disregardful of law. It is the duty of the Court awarding compensation from the Public fund, to award strictly as per compensation Rule1990 and undue leniency needs to be avoided.

7. Keeping in view the discussion made above I hold that the applicant has conclusively failed to prove that her husband accidentlly fell down from a running train and died thereof.

8. The issue is answered against the applicant and the case of the applicant does not come under the purview of Section 123 (C) (2) of the Railways Act 1989.’

9. The appellant being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Learned Tribunal has come up with the instant appeal.

10. Heard Learned Advocate for the appellant and Learned Advocate for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.

11. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the said case was filed in the Railway Claims Tribunal Claiming compensation in terms of provision of Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989 on the ground of accidental falling of a passenger named Late Amrit/Amrita Pramanick from train carrying passenger which was an untoward incident in terms of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act 1989. Learned Advocate further submits that the inquest report as prepared by the Police Authority clearly reflects the fact of falling down from the train carrying passenger herein named as Amrit Praminik S/O. Brindaban Pramanik of Village-Belp