A bona fide passenger with a valid ticket is entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act unless the Railway proves exceptions like suicide or self-inflicted injuries.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this appeal, the appellants seek a direction from this court to set aside the nil award dated 22.04.2021 passed in OA (IIU) No.348 of 2017 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and to grant statutory compensation of eight lakh rupees with interest for the accidental death of the deceased.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The appellants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Sankarshan Pradhan, filed OA (IIU) No. 348/2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, alleging that the deceased died due to an accidental fall from a running train while travelling from Kharagpur to Jajpur Road. A journey ticket bearing No. UWC-13329357 was stated to have been recovered from the possession of the deceased during the inquest. The incident was reported between Kendrapara and Manjuri Road railway stations near KM No. 309/37-39, where the deceased’s body was found in two parts.

(ii) The contemporaneous documents on record, including the FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, and final police report, recorded the death as having occurred on the railway track. The appellants initially mentioned Train No. 12887 (Howrah-Puri Express) in the claim application and subsequently sought amendment to refer to Train No. 12863 (Howrah-Yeshwantpur Express).

(iii) The Respondent Railway relied on the statutory DRM investigation conducted under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2003, and submitted under Sections 129 and 190 of the Railways Act. The DRM report noted that Train No. 12887 was a weekly train that did not operate on the date of the journey ticket, and recorded observations regarding the position and condition of the deceased’s body, the absence of eyewitnesses, and lack of material indicating negligence on the part of the Railway Administration.

(iv) The Railway Claims Tribunal framed five issues relating to the nature of the incident, bona fide passengership, entitlement to compensation, dependency, and relief. After considering the pleadings, documents and evidence adduced by both sides, the Tribunal concluded that there was no proof establishing that the deceased had purchased or travelled with a valid ticket, that the exact train allegedly travelled by was unclear, and that the injury pattern did not support accidental fall from a running train. The Tribunal held that the death did not fall within the definition of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and dismissed the claim through a nil award dated 22.04.2021, without deciding Issues 4 and 5.

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 statutory scheme under Section 124A imposes strict liability on the Railways once death results from an untoward incident, unless the Railways proves one of the narrow statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or criminal act. They argue that negligence, lack of eyewitnesses, or inconsistencies in narration do not bar compensation under the no-fault regime. Reliance is placed on authoritative precedents including Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, which makes negligence irrelevant under Section 124A.

(ii) The appellants challenge the Tribunal’s finding that the ticket was planted solely because the train number was initially mentioned incorrectly in the clai