Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,

CUTTACK

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

F.A.O No. 119 of 2020

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

Claims Tribunal Act, 1987).

Tilotama Patri …. Appellant(s)

-versus-

Union of India …. Respondent(s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Appellant (s) : Mr. L.N. Rayatsingh, Adv. For Respondent (s) : Mr. D.K. Sahoo, CGC.

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-19.11.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025

Dr. SanjeebK Panigrahi, J.

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

dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in O.A./II(U)/ 2016/152 dismissing her 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.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (i) On 11.11.2012, the deceased Ganeswar Patri was travelling from Koratur to Chennai Central Railway Station in a general compartment of the train, due to push and pull of co- passengers, he lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running train near Villivakkum home signal of Perambur Railway Station, Chennai-II, 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/II(U)/2016/152 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/II(U)/2016/152 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 Appellants 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 Appellants 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, as the Railway Administration appoints ticket collector to verify the travel authority of passengers, an institutional mechanism is in place to ascertain whether a person was bona fide passenger. In such circumstances, a presumption of regularity operates in favour of Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 the passenge