Orissa High Court clarifies that compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act cannot be denied solely due to non-recovery of a travel ticket if circumstantial or official documentary evidence establishes bona fide passengership and an ‘untoward incident.’ Judgment upholds and applies Supreme Court precedents, enhancing the welfare objective of the Act; binding on subordinate courts and carrying strong persuasive value for others.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO No. 279 of 2020 (Nirupar Manta & Ors vs Union of India) |
| CNR | ODHC010174742020 |
| Date of Registration | 03-03-2020 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi) |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for subordinate courts in Odisha; strong persuasive value elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Statutory interpretation; Railway law; Compensation under strict liability (Railways Act, 1989 s.124A) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that Section 124A of the Railways Act embodies a principle of strict no-fault liability, making compensation automatic upon proof of death or injury in an “untoward incident” by a bona fide passenger. Negligence, including gross negligence, is legally irrelevant to liability. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court clarified that non-production or non-recovery of a journey ticket does not bar a claim if circumstantial or official evidence (like inquest, post-mortem, and investigation reports) establishes lawful travel and the occurrence of an untoward incident. The exceptions to liability (e.g., suicide, self-inflicted injury) must be proven by the Railways, and in this case, none were established. The Tribunal’s dismissal based on the absence of a journey ticket and lack of eyewitness evidence was found to be unsustainable in law. The High Court allowed the claim and mandated prompt compensation, reinforcing the beneficial and welfare-oriented legislative approach. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Doctrines of strict/no-fault liability; social welfare objective of the Railways Act; Supreme Court interpretations of evidentiary standards in fatal railway incidents |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Deceased Kumar Manta died from a fall while traveling on a valid ticket in the Guwahati SF Express, allegedly due to overcrowding and a train jerk, resulting in death at the spot. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim citing lack of a ticket and bona fide passengership; however, police and investigative reports substantiated accidental death from a running train. The High Court found cumulative official records sufficient evidence of lawful travel and occurrence of an untoward incident, not perturbed by non-recovery of the journey ticket. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court, Railway Claims Tribunal Benches |
| Overrules | Judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 289 of 2016 |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The absence of a journey ticket on the deceased does not automatically defeat compensation claims under Section 124A, if credible circumstantial or official documentary evidence can establish bona fide passengership and the occurrence of an “untoward incident.”
- The burden of proving exceptions (such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, or non-bona fide passengership) lies on the Railway Administration; strict liability is not affected by any suggestion of fault or contributory negligence.
- Tribunal findings based solely on the non-recovery of a ticket or lack of eyewitness testimony will not suffice to dismiss compensation claims if contemporaneous official reports indicate accidental fall/death during lawful journey.
- Lawyers can rely on this judgment to reinforce claimant rights and reduce reliance on hyper-technical requirements for physical ticket production, consistent with the Supreme Court’s welfare interpretation.
- The approach affirms a beneficial, welfare-oriented legislative purpose prioritising efficacy and justice to victims’ families over technicalities.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Strict (No-Fault) Liability Under Section 124A: The Court reiterated that Section 124A of the Railways Act imposes strict liability on railways for deaths or injuries from untoward incidents, regardless of any negligence or fault, aligning with welfare statutes and prior Supreme Court authority (Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, Rina Devi).
- Limited Statutory Exceptions: Only the exceptions enumerated in the proviso to Section 124A—such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal acts—can absolve railway liability, and these must be narrowly and strictly construed.
- Burden of Proof: Once foundational facts (accidental fall during a journey, bona fide passengership) are shown, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove the case falls within an exception; mere absence of a journey ticket or lack of eyewitnesses is insufficient for denial.
- Non-Recovery of Ticket Not Fatal: Citing Rina Devi, the Court asserted that production of the ticket is not mandatory when circumstantial or documentary evidence establishes travel; often, tickets are lost in accidents.
- Assessment of Evidence: Inquest, post-mortem, and police reports, all official documents, established accidental fall and lawful travel; Tribunal’s reliance on the lack of a ticket and lack of eyewitnesses was misplaced.
- Rejection of Tribunal’s Reasoning: The Tribunal’s findings were contrary to settled law and the weight of evidence; strict liability attaches in such circumstances, and denial of legal relief was unwarranted.
- Conclusion/Relief: The claim was allowed, and compensation awarded, emphasising the remedial and beneficial character of the Act.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants)
- The Tribunal’s dismissal was contrary to evidence and suffered from misappreciation of law.
- Section 124A creates strict liability; negligence or fault is irrelevant. Reliance placed on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar.
- Non-recovery of a journey ticket is not fatal; the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi accepts circumstantial/documentary proof of bona fide passengership.
- Official documents (inquest, post-mortem, police reports) establish accidental fall from train; Railways produced no substantive evidence to rebut.
- Tribunal wrongly held the death to be suicidal or within statutory exceptions without basis.
- Requested claim to be allowed and compensation awarded with interest.
Respondent (Union of India/Railways)
- Claimant must prove bona fide passengership and occurrence of untoward incident; only then does the burden shift.
- Appellants failed to prove foundational facts—no credible proof of accidental fall or bona fide travel; no valid ticket was found.
- Testimony of AW-1 (father) unreliable, inconsistent, and not eyewitness; his account was speculative and uncorroborated.
- Alleged ticket produced was fabricated.
- On these grounds, Tribunal’s dismissal was correct and in line with evidence and law.
Factual Background
The deceased, Kumar Manta, was traveling from Bangalore Cant to Guwahati on the Guwahati SF Express with a valid journey ticket on 18.02.2016. During the journey, owing to overcrowding and a sudden jerk from braking, he lost balance and fell from the running train between Soro and Balasore stations, dying instantly. The claim for compensation was filed by his family, but the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed it, citing non-recovery of a ticket and absence of proof of bona fide passengership. The documentary record comprised inquest, post-mortem, and police investigation reports, all attesting to death from accidental fall during train travel.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 124A, Railways Act, 1989: Imposes strict (no-fault) liability on the Railway Administration for death/injury in an “untoward incident,” except in narrowly defined situations like suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal acts, intoxication, or natural causes/disease.
- Section 123(c) “Untoward Incident”: Includes accidental fall from train.
- The Court interpreted the proviso to Section 124A restrictively—defence only available if the situation squarely falls within express exceptions.
- Reliance on Supreme Court interpretative guidance (Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, Rina Devi) that beneficiary is not to be denied relief on technical grounds or absence of physical ticket, given the welfare character of the Act.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were set or discussed in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment affirms existing Supreme Court precedent on strict liability and evidentiary standards under Section 124A of the Railways Act.