Compensation under Railways Act requires proof of bona fide passenger status; strict liability does not extend where exceptions apply and evidence counters passenger validity.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The appellants are challenging the award dated 12.11.2014 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.108 of 2008.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) On 03.02.2008, the deceased was travelling by Train No. 2808 Samata Express from Titilagarh to Muniguda in the general class compartment.

(ii) The train was overcrowded, and as a result, the deceased was standing near the door of the compartment. Due to a sudden jerk, he accidentally fell down from the said train near the station yard, was run over, and died on the spot.

(iii) The Titilagarh GRPS registered U.D. Case No. 2/03.02.2008 in connection with the incident.

(iv) In order to seek compensation for the death of the deceased in the alleged untoward incident, the applicants, being the wife and son of the deceased, filed a Claim Application O.A. No.108 of 2008before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, praying for an award of ₹4,00,000/- along with interest.

(v) The learned Tribunal, upon hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record, held that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor that the incident qualified as an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123 (c) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989. Consequently, the claim application was dismissed.

(vi) Being aggrieved by the award dated 12.11.2014 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A. No.108 of 2008, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

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 submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal is bad in law, contrary to the evidence on record, and liable to be set aside.

(ii) After the incident, Railway officials informed the GRP that an unknown male had been run over by a train. The police registered a U.D. Case and, upon investigation, found that the deceased had a valid general class ticket bearing No. 67045091. Witnesses confirmed recovery of the ticket from his pocket, with the number mentioned in the final report. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a ticketless traveller is erroneous and unsustainable.

(iii) The appellants contended that the incident clearly falls within the definition of an “untoward incident” under Section 123 (c) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989. Under Section 124-A, compensation is payable unless the case falls under exceptions (a)–(e). An accidental fall from a running train squarely constitutes an untoward incident. The Tribunal’s finding to the contrary is contrary to law.

(iv) The appellants further submitted that the DRM report relied upon by the Tribunal has no evidentiary value, as no witness was examined nor any supporting material produced. The report’s allegation that the deceased was a samosa vendor without a ticket is unsupported by evidence, whereas the police investigation and witness statements clearly establish valid travel.

(v) The appellants asserted that the burden lies on the Railway Administration to prove that the occurrence does not constitute an untoward incident or that an exception under Section 124-A applies. Once a prima facie case of accidental fall is shown, the dependants are not required to prove negligence or dis