Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,

CUTTACK

Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

F.A.O No.36 of 2021

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

Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).

Bhanu Majhi …. Appellant(s)

-versus-

Union of India …. Respondent(s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sambit Das, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Mr. Rakesh Behera, CGC

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-13.11.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment and order

dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in O.A.(IIU) Case No.234 of 2016 dismissing her claim application for compensation arising out of the death of her daughter alleged to have occurred in an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning

of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The factual matrix as set out in the case reveals that:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (i) On 23.05.2016 the deceased, Smt. Pada Majhi, undertook a journey from Titlagarh to Kantabanjhi aboarding the Visakhapatnam–Durg Passenger Train. During the said journey, she is stated to have accidentally fallen from the moving train between Kantabanjhi and Muribahal Railway Stations, resulting in her instantaneous death.

(ii) The Appellant asserts that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, having duly purchased her journey ticket, which unfortunately went missing in the very course of the untoward incident which led to a circumstance that has repeatedly been acknowledged in judicial precedents as a plausible and natural consequence of accidental falls which has been succinctly dealt in Union of India v. Rina Devi1 (iii) Upon the recovery of the body, the Government Railway Police Station, Kantabanji registered U.D. Case No. 15 dated 23.05.2016 under the appropriate provisions and undertook the statutory investigation. The inquest and post-mortem report, along with other contemporaneous materials, form part of the record and shed light on the nature of the injuries sustained.

(iv) The Respondent/Railway contested the claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal and advanced the plea that the incident was not a fall from a running train but a run-over case. Construing the episode as one falling outside the statutory definition of an

1(2019) 3 SCC 572

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124- A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Respondents further argued that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

(v) This defence is one that bears a significant evidentiary burden on the Railway Administration, for Section 124-A embodies a principle of no-fault liability, and the presumption ordinarily operates in favour of the victim unless the Railways establish one of the statutory exceptions.

(vi) The Appellant, the mother of the deceased, entered the witness box as A.W.1, filed her affidavit-in-evidence, and was duly cross- examined. To corroborate the claim that the deceased had (a) purchased a ticket and (b) accidentally fallen from the moving train, the Appellant also examined A.W.3, an eyewitness whose testimony lends material support to the foundational facts of bona fide travel and accidental fall.

(vii) Judicial pronouncements consistently hold that once the claimant establishes the basic facts of boarding the train and the accidental fall, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the presumption in favour of the claimant. In this respect, the evidence led by the Appellant was neither inherently improbable nor contradicted by any unimpeachable material.

(viii) Despite the above, the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, after framing the requisite issues, proceeded to dismiss the claim application by its Judgme