The Orissa High Court reaffirms that compensation for death or injury from an “untoward incident” under Section 124A of the Railways Act is governed by strict (no-fault) liability; proof of negligence is immaterial, and non-recovery of a ticket is not fatal if bona fide passengership can be circumstantially established. The Court applies Supreme Court precedent and narrows the application of statutory exceptions, strengthening binding authority for claimants and practitioners in railway accident claims.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO/279/2020 of NIRUPAR MANTA 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 Sanjeeb K Panigrahi |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Railway accident compensation (Statutory, Civil) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that Section 124A of the Railways Act institutes a regime of strict (no-fault) liability. Proof of negligence or fault is wholly immaterial where death or injury results from an “untoward incident” and the claimant is a bona fide passenger. Non-production or non-recovery of a valid ticket does not bar compensation where circumstantial or oral evidence establishes lawful travel, applying the principles from Rina Devi. The only grounds for denying compensation are the narrow statutory exceptions in the proviso to Section 124A, which must be affirmatively proved by the Railways and construed restrictively. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on the doctrine of strict liability as articulated by the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Rina Devi. It traced the welfare-oriented legislative intent of Section 124A, emphasizing distributive justice, and invoked the principle that exceptions to beneficial statutes must be strictly construed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased boarded the Guwahati SF Express from Bangalore Cantt. with a valid journey ticket. Due to overcrowding and a sudden jerk between Soro and Balasore, he lost balance and fell from the running train, dying on the spot. The claim for compensation under Section 124A was dismissed by the Tribunal for lack of proof of ticket and credibility of the testimony. The High Court, on appeal, found the claimants’ circumstantial evidence credible, and the official records established the fall from a train while traveling as a passenger; no statutory exception was proved by the Railways. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Railway Claims Tribunals, Supreme Court (reinforces existing Supreme Court principles) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that claimants under Section 124A need not prove negligence or fault by the Railways for successful compensation claims.
- Non-production of journey ticket is not fatal if bona fide passengership is proved by reliable circumstantial or oral evidence.
- Statutory exceptions (e.g., suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication) are the only legitimate grounds for denial and must be strictly proved by the Railways.
- Factual findings favoring claimants may rest on post-mortem reports, inquest proceedings, police documents, and the cumulative evidentiary matrix—not just eyewitness testimony or ticket recovery.
- Raises the evidentiary bar for Railway administration to contest claims; mere conjecture or self-serving internal reports are insufficient.
- Useful citation for overcoming hyper-technical rejections, particularly where ticket is lost during the incident.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court posed three core questions: Was the deceased a bona fide passenger? Did the incident qualify as an “untoward incident”? Were the statutory exceptions to liability applicable?
- It affirmed the Supreme Court’s doctrine that Section 124A creates strict (no-fault) liability and is to be construed beneficially, prioritizing compensation for victims of railway accidents.
- Negligence of the passenger or Railway is irrelevant unless the case fits squarely within explicit statutory exceptions.
- The Court relied on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) and Rina Devi (2019), emphasizing that non-production of a journey ticket is not decisive; circumstantial or documentary evidence is acceptable if it reasonably shows bona fide passengership.
- Analyzed official documents (inquest, post-mortem, police reports) which corroborated the claim that the deceased died after falling from a running train, and found no contrary evidence from the Railways.
- The statutory exceptions are to be strictly construed; their invocation requires clear proof from the Railway authority.
- Tribunal’s conclusions about absence of ticket and witness credibility were overruled as contrary to the Supreme Court’s legal standards and unsupported by the record.
- The Court allowed the appeal, awarded compensation, and directed disbursal according to law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Dismissal of the claim was contrary to the weight of evidence and bad in law.
- Section 124A imposes strict liability: negligence is irrelevant; only statutory exceptions matter.
- Non-production of ticket does not preclude compensation—bona fide passengership can be inferred from circumstantial/oral evidence, per Supreme Court.
- Official records (inquest, post-mortem, police reports) corroborate an accidental fall; Railways presented no credible rebuttal.
- Tribunal misapplied the law and erred in findings about suicide/self-inflicted injury.
- Prayed for setting aside of the Tribunal’s judgment and payment of compensation with interest.
Respondent (Railways)
- Initial burden is on claimant to establish bona fide passengership and accidental death.
- Appellants failed to establish the foundational facts; absence of ticket and direct evidence undermined their claim.
- Circumstances pointed to possible self-inflicted act/suicide, falling within the statutory exceptions.
- Tribunal’s adverse finding on the reliability of key witness was justified; testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated.
- No journey ticket was recovered; the one later produced was alleged to be fabricated.
- The claim was untenable and the Tribunal’s factual findings should stand.
Factual Background
The deceased, Kumar Manta, was traveling from Bangalore Cant to Guwahati by the Guwahati SF Express on a valid ticket on 18.02.2016. During the journey, due to overcrowding and a sudden jerk, he lost balance and fell from the running train between Soro and Balasore, dying at the scene. The family filed for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding a lack of proof of bona fide passengership and ticket, and doubting the veracity of claimant evidence. The present appeal challenges that decision.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 124A of Railways Act: Imposes strict (no-fault) liability for death/injury in an “untoward incident,” with compensation mandatory unless one of the enumerated exceptions applies (e.g., suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication, natural causes). The proviso is exclusionary and must be strictly construed.
- Section 123(c)(2): Defines “untoward incident.”
- The Court interpreted these provisions in line with Supreme Court precedent: exceptions are narrow, and negligence/contributory negligence by the passenger is no defence unless exception conditions are strictly met.
- Non-production of ticket not fatal; law allows cumulative/circumstantial proof of passengership (per Rina Devi).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and applies existing Supreme Court authority (Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, Rina Devi) and reiterates established legal principles for Section 124A claims under the Railways Act.