Strict liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act mandates compensation for untoward incidents involving bona fide passengers, regardless of negligence claims or absence of tickets.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this appeal, the appellant seeks a direction from this court to set aside the order dated 19.02.2020 passed in O.A. No. 93 of 2017 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench and to grant statutory compensation of eight lakh rupees with interest, holding the incident to be an untoward incident.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 01.10.2016, the deceased, Mukunda Barik, was travelling with his son, from Yeshwantpur to Balasore by the Yeshwantpur–Howrah Express. At KM No. 270/16-14, between Markona and Soro railway stations, he allegedly fell from the running train due to the push and pull of passengers and died on the spot.

(ii) The GRPS, Balasore registered UD Case No. 78/2016 and conducted investigation. During the inquest, the police recorded that the cause of death was accidental fall from a running train, which was further confirmed by the post-mortem report, final report and other connected papers.

(iii) The appellants, as the legal heirs of deceased Mukunda Barik, initially filed a claim application under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of his death in an alleged untoward incident. Pursuing this claim, they subsequently instituted O.A. No. 93/2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, invoking Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and asserting their entitlement to statutory compensation for the death of the deceased in the said untoward incident.

(iv) The Tribunal, however, held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers, and further that his death did not fall within the definition of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent Railways was not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants for the death of the deceased.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The appellants contend that the Tribunal erred fundamentally in dismissing their claim by focusing narrowly on the alleged absence of a valid journey ticket rather than addressing the real legal issues arising under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

(ii) According to the appellants, the Tribunal’s approach was hyper-technical and resulted in perverse findings, particularly because it ignored crucial police documents prepared immediately after the incident. They emphasise that the inquest report itself records that a general compartment journey ticket was found near the body, though blood-soaked, torn and unrecoverable, clearly supporting the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. They argue that it was the duty of the GRPS to seize the ticket, and the fact that it could not be recovered owing to its damaged condition cannot be used to negate bona fide passengership.

(iii) The appellants submit that the Tribunal wrongly discarded the inquest report, post-mortem report, and final report; all of which uniformly concluded that the deceased died due to accidental fall from a running train and that no foul play was suspected. Instead, the Tribunal placed undue reliance solely on the DRM report, thereby ignoring contemporaneous police evidence that, by judicial precedent, carries substantial weight in accident cases.

(iv) On the legal framework, the appellants emphasise that Section 124A establi