The court clarified that a passenger's accidental fall qualifies as an 'untoward incident' under Section 124A, regardless of negligence, mandating compensation for victims.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this appeal, the appellant seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the dismissal of OA No. 153 of 2016 vide judgment/ order dated 07.11.2019 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, recognise the death as an untoward incident involving a bona fide passenger, and consequently award statutory compensation of eight lakh rupees with interest.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The present appeal arises from the dismissal of OA No. 153 of 2016 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, concerning the death of Simanchal Behera on 13.04.2009 at or near Vani Vihar Railway Station, Bhubaneswar. The deceased was the husband of appellant one, father of appellants two to four, and son of appellant five.

(ii) According to the claim petition, the deceased had boarded the Puri Sambalpur Intercity Express bearing Train No. 8304 between 5.30 p.m. and 6.00 p.m., and allegedly fell from the train due to a sudden movement and passenger pressure while climbing into the coach. The Railway administration, in its written statement and DRM report, denied the occurrence of any such fall and stated that the deceased died due to coming into contact with a running train.

(iii) After the incident, the deceased was taken to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where post mortem was conducted on 14.04.2009. GRP Police registered UD GR Case No. 198 of 2009, investigated the matter, and submitted a final report before the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar recording the death. Railway memos generated contemporaneously recorded that an unidentified male had dashed against Train No. 8304 and was found dead at Vani Vihar platform near the booking office.

(iv) The legal heirs filed the claim application in 2015. The Tribunal framed issues pertaining to the nature of the incident, bona fide passenger status, statutory protection under Section 124A of the Railways Act, dependency, and entitlement to compensation.

(v) Appellant one was examined as AW1 and described the occurrence as an accidental fall. She was not an eyewitness. AW2, examined as an eyewitness, stated that he saw the deceased purchase a ticket and fall, and later produced a ticket said to be from the date of the incident. Railway records indicated that no ticket or travel authority was recovered from the deceased at the time of the incident. The Tribunal observed inconsistencies in AW2’s evidence, including the route and timing of the ticket produced and the delay of nearly ten years in producing it.

(vi) Certified copies of the police final report, zimanama, and post mortem report were exhibited by the applicants. The respondents examined RW1, an inquiry officer, who stated that no records concerning the incident were available due to destruction of old files and admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the incident.

(vii) The Tribunal, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence, held that the applicants had not proved either the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger or the occurrence of an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and dismissed the claim.

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 cumulative oral and documentary evidence establishes without contradiction that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died due to an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act.

(ii) They assert t