Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,

CUTTACK

Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

F.A.O. No. 235 of 2020

(In the matter of an application under Section 23 of the Railway

Claims Tribunal Act, 1987)

Mohan Lal Sharma and Anr. …. Appellant (s)

-versus-

Union of India …. Respondent (s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Dhananjay Mund, Adv. For Respondent (s) : Mr. Millon Kumar, CGC

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-16.12.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.12.2025

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this appeal, the Appellants seek a direction from this Court to set

aside the impugned nil award dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A-II/321/2025 and to grant statutory compensation for the death of the deceased caused in an untoward railway incident under Section 124-A of the Railways Act,

1989.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,

CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 (i) On 28.11.2015, the deceased, Ankit Sharma, was travelling from Kantabanji to Balangir by Train No. 18426, Durg-Puri Express. During the course of the journey, the deceased is alleged to have fallen from the running train and sustained fatal injuries, resulting in his death at the spot.

(ii) The appellants are the parents of Late Ankit Sharma. They filed an application being OA-II/321/2015 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, on account of the death of their son in a railway incident. The claimants asserted that the deceased was travelling with a valid journey ticket at the relevant time.

(iii) Upon issuance of notice, the respondent–Railway Administration entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed a written statement. The respondent denied the averments made in the claim application, disputed its liability to pay compensation, and prayed for dismissal of the claim.

(iv) After considering the pleadings, evidence, and materials on record, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, by judgment dated 06.01.2020 dismissed the claim application in OA-II/321/2015.

(v) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment and seeking appropriate reliefs.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,

CUTTACK Date: 13-Jan-2026 17:13:16 II. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT (i) The Railway Claims Tribunal examined the pleadings, oral evidence, documentary materials, and the DRM inquiry report while adjudicating Issues Nos. 1, 2, and 3 together, treating them as interlinked. The Tribunal first considered the affidavits of A.W.1, the father of the deceased, and A.W.2, the maternal uncle, both of whom asserted that the deceased had travelled by Train No. 18426, Durg-Puri Express, after purchasing a valid journey ticket and had died due to an accidental fall from the train. The Tribunal noted that both witnesses were examined and cross-examined, and their statements were placed on record in support of the claim that the death resulted from an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act, 1989.

(ii) However, the Tribunal attached significant weight to the statement of A.W.1 recorded earlier during the DRM inquiry. It observed that this statement differed materially from the version subsequently put forward in the affidavits of A.W.1 and A.W.2 before the Tribunal, particularly with respect to the sequence of events preceding the journey and the deceased’s movements on the date of the incident. The Tribunal found these inconsistencies to be substantial and held that such contradictions cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the claim and on the factum of travel of the deceased as a passenger in the alleged train.

(iii) The Tribunal further relied upon th