The court ruled that an accidental falling of a bona fide passenger from a train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, mandating strict liability for compensation, irrespective of contributory negligence or alleged fabrication of tickets.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In the instant Appeal, the Appellants have challenged the nil award dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in OA No. 275 of 2015.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The appellants, being the parents of deceased Srinivas Biswal, filed a claim application under the Railway Claims Act seeking Rs.4,00,000/- compensation on account of his death in an untoward incident.

(ii) The case of the appellants was that on 25.11.2014, Srinivas Biswal was travelling from Jharsuguda to Damanjodi by the Rourkela–Koraput Express as a bona fide passenger with a valid general ticket (No. 13887905). At KM No. 326/04-08, between Therubali and Singhpur railway stations, he accidentally fell down from the running train and died on the spot.

(iii) The GRPS, Rayagada registered UD Case No. 36/14 and investigated. Police, during the inquest, recorded recovery of the journey ticket from the deceased, confirmed by inquest report, postmortem report, and other papers.

(iv) The respondent Railways contested, alleging that though a ticket was mentioned, it was a fabricated one, and denied both the deceased’s bona fide passenger status and the characterization of the event as an untoward incident.

(v) Evidence led: appellants examined one witness and filed documents including Station Superintendent’s memo, inquest report, postmortem, challan, and journey ticket. Respondents examined one witness and relied only on the DRM report.

(vi) The Tribunal held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death did not constitute an untoward incident, thereby dismissing the claim application in toto.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

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

(i) The Tribunal’s finding that the ticket was subsequently “added” in police papers is unsupported by pleadings or evidence from the Railways and is based on no evidence. Police records, inquest report, and final report all consistently record recovery of a valid journey ticket from the deceased.

(ii) The Station Superintendent’s memo and GRPS investigation confirm the death was due to falling from a running train, making it an untoward incident under Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the RAILWAYS ACT . The Tribunal’s contrary view is unsustainable.

(iii) The investigating agency’s final report, postmortem, and inquest all conclude the death was caused by the fall, and no contrary evidence was adduced by the Railways. Reliance solely on the DRM report, without witnesses or substantive proof, is insufficient.

(iv) Burden of proof lies on the Railways to show the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; the Tribunal wrongly shifted this burden on the claimants.

(v) Section 124A of the RAILWAYS ACT is a beneficial, welfare legislation. Unless the case falls under express exceptions (suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication, criminal act), the Railways’ liability to compensate is strict. None of those exceptions apply here.

(vi) Once death occurs due to an untoward incident while travelling, the statutory liability of the Railways is automatic. The Tribunal’s finding to the contrary undermines the purpose of the legislation and wrongly deprives dependents of compensation.

(vii) Hence, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim despite sufficient oral and documentary evidence establishing bona fide travel and accidental death. The award is unsustainable, bad in law, and fit to be set aside with grant of compensatio