The court reaffirmed that the statutory presumption of bona fide travel under the Railways Act must be upheld unless rebutted by the railway administration with clear evidence; failure to do so renders denial of compensation erroneous.

Judgment :

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 27.12.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for the sake of brevity) in O.A. (IIU) No.123 of 2024, whereby the claim application filed by the present Appellants under Section 124A of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 was dismissed. The Appellants, being the parents and legal heirs of the deceased, have assailed the said order, contending that their unmarried son, Hemanta @ Chintamani Mangaraj, died in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act, consequent upon an accidental fall from a running train during the course of a bona fide journey, and the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in denying the statutory compensation admissible under the scheme of no-fault liability.

ACTUAL ATRIX OF THE ASE

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

i. The factual backdrop, as delineated from the record, is that on 22.07.2017, Hemanta @ Chintamani Mangaraj (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was travelling from Rajasunakhala to Khurda Road Railway Station by Train No. 5430 — Rajasunakhala – Khurda Road Passenger as a bona fide passenger, having purchased a valid second-class journey ticket bearing No. 51105772 dated 22.07.2017 for the said route. During the course of travel, near Sanapada Jakala Over Bridge, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train and succumbed to his injuries at the spot.

ii. Pursuant thereto, Begunia Police Station registered U.D. Case No.09 of 2017 dated 22.07.2017 and undertook investigation. Upon completion of the same, the police submitted a final report opining that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from multiple injuries sustained due to an accidental fall from a running train. Thus, the incident stood established as an accidental fall occurring during the course of a bona fide journey.

iii. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by both sides, framed as many as five issues for adjudication, including the crucial questions as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether the death occurred as a consequence of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989. However, the Tribunal, after evaluating the materials on record, answered all issues in favour of the Respondent–Union of India (representing the Railway Administration) and consequently dismissed the claim petition of the Appellants vide its impugned judgment and award dated 27.12.2024.

iv. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award dated 27.12.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. (IIU) No.123 of 2024, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal, assailing the legality, propriety, and correctness of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The Appellants contend, inter alia, that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the settled legal position governing compensation under Sections 123(c), 124A, and 125 of the Act.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

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

i. It is submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has neither furnished any cogent reasoning nor offered any satisfactory explanation in respect of the journey ticket of the deceased as on the date of the incident. It is not in dispute that the deceased was in lawful possession of a valid second-class journey ticket bearing