Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,

CUTTACK

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

F.A.O No. 45 of 2020

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

Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).

Jugeshwar Samarath @ Laxman …. Appellant(s)

Samarath

-versus-

Union of India …. Respondent(s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Akansh Acharya, Adv.

On behalf of

Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Adv.

For Respondent (s) : Mr. Darpan Pattnaik, Sr. P.C.

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-25.11.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

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

order dated 29.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in O.A./(IIU)/ MCC No. 217 of 2015 dismissing his claim application for compensation arising out of the death alleged to have occurred in an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 124A of the

Railways Act, 1989.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) On31.06.2015, the deceased Smt. Pushpa Jugeshwar was travelling in Gondia-Jharsuguda Passenger Train, due to push and pull of co-passengers, he lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running train in between Raigarh and Jharsuguda Railway Station, as a result he sustained fatal injuries and died on the same day. The deceased was a bona fide passenger and the ticket was lost during the course of the incident.

(ii) The Police, during the inquest recorded cause of death of the deceased to be fall down from running train, confirmed by final report, post-mortem report and other papers.

(iii) The appellants, thereafter, instituted OA/(IIU)/MCC No.217 of

2015 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989, on account of the death of the deceased, allegedly occasioned by an “untoward incident”.

(iv) On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed five issues for adjudication, and upon detailed examination, concluded that the victim died to his own negligence and was not a bona fide passenger. The claim application was, accordingly, dismissed.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.11.2019 passed in OA/(IIU)/MCC No.217 of 2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar bench, the Appellants preferred this appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

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

(i) The Appellant submitted that the dismissal of the Original Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased is against the weight of the evidences on record, suffers from misappreciation of the material facts, and is bad in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside.

(ii) The Appellant further contended that the Inquest Report, the Postmortem Report, and the Final Report, unanimously conclude that the death of the deceased was due to fall from the train. No cogent or contrary evidence has been adduced by the Railways to rebut these findings. It was urged that mere reliance on the DRM’s report, unsupported by witness testimony or substantive proof, cannot from the sole basis for denying the claim.

(iii) It is well-settled proposition of law that the Appellants are not required to strictly establish that the untoward incident occurred due to any wrongful act, negligence or default on the part of the Railway Administration. In the present case, no such plea was Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 adavanced nor was any such fact e