In a landmark ruling in Santosh Ku. Sahoo v. Union of India (FAO No. 135 of 2020), Orissa High Court reaffirmed the principle of strict liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, holding the Indian Railways accountable for the accidental death of a passenger who fell from a running train.
The judgment, delivered by Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi on 10 October 2025, sets a significant precedent reinforcing the welfare intent of railway compensation law and the rights of bona fide passengers who become victims of “untoward incidents.”
Factual Background
The case arose from a tragic incident on 19 January 2017, when Krushna Chandra Sahoo was travelling from Berhampur to Bhubaneswar by the Bisakha Express with a valid ticket (No. VYA-51990424).
During the journey, the compartment became overcrowded. As the train jolted due to a sudden application of brakes, the deceased lost balance and fell from the train between Lingaraj and Bhubaneswar stations, succumbing to fatal injuries on the spot.
His family filed a compensation claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), Bhubaneswar, under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, asserting that the death was caused by an “untoward incident.”
However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that:
- The deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and
- The occurrence was not an “untoward incident”, as it allegedly appeared to be a suicidal death.
Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Orissa High Court under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the Tribunal’s findings.
Issues Before the Court
The High Court framed three crucial issues for determination:
- Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
- Whether the death was caused by an ‘untoward incident’ under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of the Railways Act?
- Whether the Railways could be absolved of liability under any statutory exception to Section 124A?
Appellant’s Submissions
The counsel for the appellant, Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, advanced the following contentions:
- The Tribunal misappreciated evidence and ignored vital documents such as the inquest report, final police report, and post-mortem report, all of which confirmed death due to a fall from a running train.
- The journey ticket was recovered from the deceased’s possession, confirming bona fide travel.
- The Railways’ reliance on the Divisional Railway Manager’s (DRM) report—an administrative, non-evidentiary document—was misplaced.
- The finding that the deceased committed suicide was unsupported by evidence and contrary to statutory presumptions under Section 124A, which establishes no-fault liability for “untoward incidents.”
- The Tribunal ignored the welfare nature of the Act, meant to provide swift compensation to victims’ families without requiring proof of negligence.
Respondent’s Submissions
Opposing the appeal, Mr. Amit Kumar Saa, learned Central Government Counsel, argued that:
- The burden of proof initially lies on the claimant to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the death resulted from an untoward incident.
- The nature of injuries—body severed into two parts—suggested suicide or self-inflicted harm, covered under the exceptions to Section 124A.
- The claimants failed to produce the journey ticket in evidence, and mere mention in the police report was insufficient proof.
- The testimony of the deceased’s son (AW-1) was biased and self-serving, lacking independent corroboration.
Findings of the Tribunal
The Railway Claims Tribunal, after examining the evidence, had held:
- The deceased’s body was found mutilated on the tracks, and there were no clear external injuries consistent with a fall.
- The train guard and driver did not notice any such incident.
- These factors indicated a deliberate act of self-destruction, not an accidental fall.
- Therefore, the death was excluded from the definition of “untoward incident.”
Consequently, the claim was dismissed because the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that no compensation was payable.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Orissa High Court undertook a comprehensive review of the factual and legal record. It made several key observations:
1. Principle of Strict Liability
Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, establishes a no-fault liability regime. Once a passenger’s death or injury results from an “untoward incident,” the Railways is automatically liable, unless it proves one of the statutory exceptions — such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, or intoxication.
The Court reiterated that negligence or default by the Railways is immaterial once an untoward incident is established.
2. Fall from Train Qualifies as ‘Untoward Incident’
The Tribunal’s distinction between a fall and a run-over was rejected. Justice Panigrahi observed:
“An accidental fall from a moving train may culminate in the passenger being run over either by the same train or another. Such a subsequent development does not alter the intrinsic character of the mishap as an accidental fall.”
Thus, even if the deceased was run over after falling, it remained an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2).
3. Proof of Bona Fide Passengership
The High Court held that the journey ticket number was clearly mentioned in police and inquest records, which are statutory documents carrying presumptive evidentiary value.
The Railways failed to rebut this presumption. Therefore, the deceased was deemed a bona fide passenger under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989.
4. Benefit of Liberal Interpretation
Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Union of India v. Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572] and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar [(2008) 9 SCC 527], the Court reaffirmed that the Railways Act is a beneficial legislation and must be liberally construed to advance the cause of justice.
A restrictive reading, the Court warned, would “defeat the object of the legislation and unjustly deprive victims of their rightful claims.”
5. Rejection of Speculative Defence
The Railways’ argument that the death was suicidal was dismissed as conjecture, unsupported by any credible evidence. The Court emphasised that the statutory presumption favours the claimant unless the Railways disproves it through concrete evidence.
Court’s Ruling
After a thorough analysis, the Orissa High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and held:
- The deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket.
- The incident was an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2).
- None of the exceptions under the proviso to Section 124A applied.
- The Railways are strictly and statutorily liable to pay compensation.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the Railways to pay:
- ₹8,00,000 (Eight Lakhs) as compensation,
- With 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim until payment,
To be deposited before the Tribunal within three months for disbursement to the claimant.
Legal Significance and Precedent Value
1. Strengthening the Doctrine of Strict Liability
This judgment reinforces that Railways cannot escape liability on speculative grounds. Once the fact of a fall from a moving train is established, the presumption of accidental causation prevails, and compensation must follow.
2. Liberal Interpretation of ‘Untoward Incident’
The Court’s reasoning expands the protective scope of Sections 123 and 124A. The term “untoward incident” must be interpreted broadly to cover all accidental mishaps during train travel, including cases where a fall leads to subsequent run-over.
3. Evidentiary Value of Police and Inquest Reports
The judgment reaffirms that statutory reports prepared by police officials carry a presumption of correctness unless rebutted by solid evidence. Administrative inquiries like DRM reports have no evidentiary sanctity.
4. Beneficial Nature of Railway Compensation Law
Following Rina Devi and Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar, the Court reiterated that the Railways Act is a social welfare statute designed to protect passengers and their families rather than shield the administration from liability.
Conclusion
Orissa High Court’s decision in Santosh Ku. Sahoo v. Union of India stands as a progressive reaffirmation of the rights of railway passengers. It underscores that compensation under Section 124A is not charity but a statutory entitlement rooted in the principle of no-fault liability.
By holding the Railways accountable, the Court emphasised that public carriers bear a moral and legal duty to safeguard passengers and to compensate victims of accidents promptly and fairly. The judgment thus strengthens public faith in the justice system and advances the humanitarian object of India’s transport law.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams