The Orissa High Court clarifies that non-recovery of a journey ticket does not automatically defeat claims under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989—circumstantial and documentary evidence are acceptable to establish passengership. The Court follows Supreme Court precedents, reinforcing the doctrine of strict liability for “untoward incidents” and setting a binding authority for subordinate courts and tribunals in railway accident compensation matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO/553/2020 of NABANITA DAS Vs UNION OF INDIA |
| CNR | ODHC010316782020 |
| Date of Registration | 11-06-2020 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts, persuasive for other High Courts and Tribunals |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court rulings; sets aside Tribunal’s decision |
| Type of Law | Railway accident compensation, statutory strict liability |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the non-recovery of a journey ticket in cases of accidental death is not conclusive evidence against the claimant, following the Supreme Court’s judgments in Union of India v. Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India. Once the prima facie case for bonafide passengership and occurrence of an “untoward incident” is established, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut it. The doctrine of strict liability applies to the Railways under Section 124A unless the case clearly fits within an enumerated statutory exception. The object of the law is to afford prompt and equitable compensation without requiring the victim to prove fault or negligence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased was alleged to have fallen from a running train due to overcrowding and sudden jerk, dying on the spot. The claim for compensation was denied by the Tribunal for lack of proof of bona fide passengership and “untoward incident.” Police and medical records consistently supported the appellants’ version. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Railway Claims Tribunals within Orissa |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Tribunals dealing with similar claims nationwide |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that strict liability applies to the Railways under Section 124A for untoward incidents unless clear statutory exceptions exist.
- Non-recovery of a journey ticket at the scene is not fatal to a compensation claim; circumstantial evidence suffices to establish bonafide passengership.
- Affidavit evidence and police/statutory records can establish the claimant’s case; the burden then shifts to the Railways to disprove.
- The judgment strongly cautions against tribunal reliance on post-incident Railway enquiry reports over contemporaneous official documents.
- Section 124A interpreted liberally as a beneficial provision; restrictive readings (for example, those denying claims due to missing tickets) are rejected.
- Lawyers representing claimants can cite this decision to counter objections based solely on document-recovery technicalities.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court identified the core statutory questions: proof of bonafide passengership, occurrence of “untoward incident,” and applicability of exceptions.
- The Court found that, per Supreme Court precedent (Rina Devi), non-recovery of a ticket does not by itself defeat a compensation claim—police and medical evidence, along with sworn affidavits, can establish the requisite facts.
- The doctrine of strict liability under Section 124A was applied: once the essentials are proven by the claimant, the onus shifts to the Railway authorities to rebut.
- The Court found no evidence from Railways rebutting official records or showing applicability of a statutory exception (like suicide, self-inflicted injury, etc.).
- The Court rejected the Tribunal’s acceptance of the Railway’s post-incident inquiry report as conclusive, noting that such reports cannot outweigh police and medical evidence.
- The interpretation of Section 124A is purpose-oriented, aiming to provide justice to victims and uphold the remedial character of the legislation.
- The Court followed Doli Rani Saha, which approved use of affidavits and documentary support in establishing the claim, further cementing the street-level application of beneficial statutory interpretation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- The Tribunal’s dismissal was against the weight of evidence, and was based on mis-appreciation of record and law.
- Police and post-mortem documents established accident as an untoward incident during lawful train travel.
- The deceased’s journey ticket could not be found but absence of ticket should not defeat claim; instead, police and post-mortem records should be relied upon.
- Tribunal misapplied the exceptions in Section 124A; no evidence of suicide or self-inflicted harm, and deceased was a bona fide passenger.
- Strict liability doctrine applies; unless Railways prove exceptions, compensation is due.
Respondent (Railways):
- Initial evidentiary burden to prove bona fide passengership and “untoward incident” lay with claimants; claimants failed to discharge this.
- Available circumstances pointed to suicide or self-inflicted incident, a statutory exception to liability.
- Testimonies led by the applicants were unreliable and lacked independent corroboration.
- No dependable proof that deceased was a valid ticket holder and a bona fide passenger; thus, claim should fail.
Factual Background
On 9.10.2016, the deceased, Anup Das, was travelling from Khadagpur to Jajpur on a valid ticket on the Howrah-Chennai Express. Due to overcrowding and a sudden jerk, he allegedly fell from the train at Jajpur Road station and died instantly. The family filed a claim under Section 124A of the Railways Act, but the Tribunal dismissed it for lack of proof of bona fide passengership and “untoward incident,” citing the absence of a recovered ticket, and relied on the Divisional Railway Manager’s post-incident report. Police and medical records, however, were consistent with the appellants’ account.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989: Defines “untoward incident” to include accidental falling of a passenger from a train.
- Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989: Establishes strict liability of the Railways for death or injury in an untoward incident, unless limited exceptions (as set out in the proviso) apply—such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, etc.
- The Court endorsed a liberal and purposive approach to the stated provisions, as required by their beneficial character, following Supreme Court interpretation.
- Exceptions must be strictly proven by the Railway Administration; mere suspicion does not suffice.
Procedural Innovations
- Reinforced acceptability of affidavits and contemporaneous official/documentary evidence (such as police and post-mortem records) to make a prima facie case for compensation.
- Clarified burden-shifting upon establishment of a prima facie case, in line with Supreme Court directions.
- Criticized sole reliance on post-incident Railway reports when contemporaneous records are available.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reiterates and applies Supreme Court rulings for compensation claims under the Railways Act, providing binding authority for lower courts and Tribunals in Orissa and persuasive guidance elsewhere.