Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

FAO No. 572 of 2020

(An appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,

1987)

Bala Pujari …. Appellant (s)

-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. Millan Kumar, CGC

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-23.10.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In filing this FAO, the Appellant claiming himself to be the legal heir

of the deceased who is claimed to have been died of a train accident, has challenged the impugned judgment/ order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench,

Bhubaneswar in O.A No.38 of 2016.

Apart from the above challenge, the Appellant has also sought for a

direction from this Court to the Respondent for granting necessary

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 compensation in his favour due to untimely death of his son in the alleged train accident.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(a) Due to some personal work at home the deceased on 02.01.2016 was travelling from Jagadalpur to Koraput by Jagadalpur- Bhubaneswar Hirakhand Express bearing train No.18448 as a bona fide passenger. The deceased is claimed to have been proceeding on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It is alleged that during course of journey, due to push and pull of passengers inside the compartment, the deceased fell down from the said train in between Jeypore-Chhatriput Railway Station at KM No.230/07-08 and died on the spot. Soon after the said incident a criminal case was instituted.

(b)Upon institution of the said criminal case and completion of investigation necessary report was submitted. After death of the deceased, the Appellant filed a case bearing O.A No.38 of 2016 before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar seeking necessary compensation.

(c) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed five issues for adjudication, and upon detailed examination, concluded that the Appellant was not a bona fide passenger and not a victim of any untoward incident. The claim application was, accordingly, dismissed.

(i) Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment/ order dated

25.11.2019 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A No.38 of 2016 the Appellant preferred this appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

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

(i) The Tribunal found that no ticket was produced or recovered during investigation, that the testimony of AW- I was unreliable, the injury sustained by the deceased was not possible due to fall down from running train and the incident did not fall under the ambit of untoward incident since there were no eye-witnesses to the same.

(ii) At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework.

Section l24A of the Railways Act enacts a regime of strict liability. Once it is established that death or injury has occurred as a result of an ‘untoward incident’, the Railway Administration is bound to pay compensation, unless the case falls within the narrowly defined exceptions of suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal act, intoxication, or natural cause. Negligence, even gross negligence, is not among these exceptions. This position was firmly settled in Union of India v. Prabhaharan Vijaya Kumar1, where the Supreme Court held that fault or negligence is irrelevant under the no-fault scheme of Section 124A. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has outrightly denied cause of death of the deceased to be an untoward incident merely because the PM

1 (2008) 9 SCC 527

Location: ORISSA HIGH CO