FAO/312/2024 of SIMA DAS Vs UNION OF INDIA on 17 August 2026

ORDER

17.08.2026

10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dtd.09.05.2024 so passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar (in short ‘Tribunal’) in Case No. OA (IIU)/45/2019. Vide the said judgment, claim application filed by the appellants was rejected.

4. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train namely Baleswar- Kharagpur Passenger Train on 21.12.2018. While so travelling, he fell down from the running train near Haladipada Railway Station and accordingly the claim

// 2 //

was filed seeking grant of compensation. However, on the ground that the deceased since was travelling without a ticket and no proof having been made that the deceased died due to falling down from the train, the claim application was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dtd.09.05.2024.

4.1. It is contended that in view of the evidence laid by AW-1 and 2, which remains un-controverted, it was required to be held that the deceased was travelling in the train on 21.12.2018 and he succumbed to the injury because of the falling down from the running training near Haladipada Railway Station.

4.2. It is also contended that in the final form submitted by the IIC, GR Police Station, Balesore on 25.06.2019, it was also admitted that the cause of the death is due to accidental fall down from the Running Train No.68022, Baleswar-Kharagpur Memo Passenger Train.

4.3. It is further contended that in the post-mortem report so available and produced before the Tribunal the cause of death was shock due to injury in the train.

4.4. It is also contended that with regard to passenger travelling in the train without having a valid ticket, the issue has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3

// 3 //

SCC-572. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-29 of the said judgment has held as follows:- “29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.”

4.5. Placing reliance on the evidence laid by AW-1 and 2 and the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court so cited (supra), learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that since the evidence of AW-1 and 2 remain un-controverted and nothing was elicited that the deceased was not travelling without having a valid ticket, in view of the post-mortem report, the evidence laid and charge sheet filed by the IIC, GR Police Station, Balesore, learned Tribunal could not have rejected the claim application so rejected vide the impugned judgment dtd.09.05.2025 under Annexure-1 with the grounds so indicated.

4.6. It is accordingly contended that the impugned judgment requires interference of this Court and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal with a direction to

// 4 //

re-adjudicate the claim afresh basing on the materials available on record.

5. Mr. M.K. Pati, learned CGC while supporting the impugned judgment contended that since the deceased was travelling without having a valid ticket and such a ticket was never produced, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned judgment.

5.1. It is also contended that since the ticket so purchased by the deceased as per the evidence of AW-2 was never produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim application.

5.2. It is also contended that since the deceased as per the post-mortem report was having one injury in the brain, it cannot be held that the deceased died due to falling down from the running train.

Making all the submissions, learned CGC prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions, this Court finds that seeking grant of compensation because of the death of the deceased in a railway accident on 21.12.2018, the appellants moved the Tribunal by filing Case No. OA (IIU)/45/2019. In support of the stand that the deceased was travelling on 21.12.2018 in Train No.68022 Baleswar-Kharagpur Memo Passenger

// 5 //

Train, evidence was laid by AW-1 and 2. Evidence & cross-examination of AW-1 and evidence & cross- examination of AW-2 reads as follows:- “AW-1

1. That, I have filed this affidavit which may be treated as evidence in chief and the contents are written as per my instruction, being understood fully to be true I put my signature.

2. That, I am the petitioner no-1 of this case and petitioner no and 2 are my minor sons and petitioner no-4 is my mother-in-law and we all have jointly filed this case for getting compensation for the death of my husband. Except us there are no other dependants and legal representatives of my deceased husband. 3- That my deceased husband was doing labour work at Balasore and used to go Balasore and by that earning he was maintaining our family. On dated 21/12/18, my deceased husband namely Niranjan Das returning from Balasore to Haladipada by Balasore-Kharagpur passenger train. During course of his journey, he accidentally fall down from the said train just before Haladipada station and lying there in injured condition. Some of the local people saw him lying in injured condition by the side of the Rly track and informed the 108 Ambulance and sifted him to DH Hospital Balasore for his treatment and by arrival at hospital, the doctors declared him death. 4- That basing on the report of the Doctors as well as SMR Haldipada, the IIC Balasore GRPS registered it as a UD Case No-108/18 and made inquest over the dead body of my deceased husband on 23/12/18 and sent the dead body to DH Hospital Balasore for pm examination. After pm examination we received the dead body and brought to our village for cremations. During the time of inquest no rly journey ticket was recovered from the possession of my deceased husband and it might have been lost during the process of sifting. It is to be noted here that my brother namely Hemanta Kumar Jena was witnessed to the purchasing of journey ticket of my deceased husband on the date of accident at Balasore Rly station and he

// 6 //

see of him at Balasore Rly station by Balasore-KGP passenger train. It is to be noted here that at the time of filing of my case the date of accident was written as 22/12/2018 inadvertently, but it was 21/12/2018. 5- That I as well as other relatives were examined by the Grps as well as RPF police and I told them about the accident and fall down of my deceased husband Niranjan Das. 6- That, I have certain documents at the time of filling of my case which are to be marked as exhibits. I am claiming Rs-8 Lakhs along with its interests from the date of accident till the payment, which the Rly Authority are liable to pay for their gross negligence. Due to the push and pull of co-passengers my husband fall down and died due to his injuries. Hence this affidavit is sworn to submit before the RCT, Bhubaneswar. Cross-Examination By Sri K.C. Mahapatra, LD, Standing Counsel for the Respondent. CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI K.C. MAHAPATRA, LD. STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT. My name is Smt. Sima Das, aged about 33 years,S/o- Late Niranjan Das, At-Goseipatana, P.S-Sadar, Dist.- Balasore. I have come here to give evidence in connection with the death of my husband by train accident namely Late Niranjan Das. The incident occurred on 21.12.2018. He was travelling from Balasore to Haldipada R/S. I was not the co-passenger to the deceased. I had visited Balasore Hosptial after getting information to attend the deadbody of my husband. I identified the deceased to be my husband. My father-in-law was pre-deceased and my mother-in- law is alive. I have two childrens namely Jeetu Das and Situ Das. I have not seen the inquest process. After P.M the deadbody was handed over to us without any connecting papers in connection with the inquiry. It is not a fact that my husband was pulling autorickshaw and on the date of incident he was not intend to cut the trees. THROUGHT COURT Q-What work your husband used to do?

// 7 //

A- He was working as Plumber. Q-Can you say the distance of your residence from the spot? A-I cannot say the exact distance, once can reach the spot after crossing two no. of villages where we stay”.

AW-2

1. That, I have filed this affidavit which may be treated as evidence in chief and the contents are written as per my instruction, being understood fully to be true i put my signature.

2. That, I Know the claimant as well as the deceased of this case. They both are my sister and brother-in- law. I am doing Plumbering work at Balasore as a contractor. Sometimes my deceased brother-in-law Niranjan Das used to work near me. 3- That on dated 21/12/2018 the deceased Niranjan Das came to Balasore for work purposes. At about 11 am the deceased felt un-comfort and he wanted to go to his home. Accordingly I accompanied him to Balasore station and I purchased one general ticket for him for Haladipada station and another platform ticket for me and see off him at Balasore Station at PF no-4. My brother-in-law entered the compartments of Balasore-Kharagpur passenger train. After the departure of the said train I informed my sister about his returning to home. But during the course of his journey, the deceased fall down from the train just before Haladipada station and sustained injuries. He was sifted by the local people to Balasore Hospital by an Ambulance, but the doctor declared him as death. Hearing the news about the death I arrived at DHH Balasore and saw the dead body of deceased Niranjan Das sustaining injuries on his head. 4- The Doctors sent a report to Rly Authority and basing on the report of Railway, the GRP Balasore made inquest over the dead body in presence of the witnesses on dated 23/12/2018. The witnesses who were present at the time of inquest opined cause of death was due to fall from down running train and there is no suspicious of any foul play behind his death. After the pm examinations we received the dead

// 8 //

body and brought to his village for funeral purposes. I was also examined by the GRP Balasore and stated about the journey of the deceased Niranjan Das. 5- That after filling of the case by my sister Sima Das before this court, the RPF police Balasore arrived at my house for my examination. I told them about the facts written above and they heard all things from me and assured me that they will prepare one written statement which will help the case of my sister and requested me to put my signature in a blank white paper. Keeping their request I put my signature in a blank white paper. Now I came to know that the written statement submitted by the Rly police before the court are not same as I orally stated them earlier. By using my signatures in a blank papers they have written some vague and irrelevant things which are not related to the case and contrary to my oral statements. 6- That my deceased brother-in-law Niranjan Das was a bonafide passenger and he died due to falling down from the running Balasaore-Kharagpur passenger train on dated 21/12/2018. On that day I had purchased the ticket and handed the same to the deceased and see off him at Balasore Rly Station PF No-4. He died due to falling down from the train. It is not a fact that the deceased Niranjan Das died due to some other reasons other than falling down from the train. The statement submitted by the RPF Police before this Tribunal are not the same as I orally stated them. By misusing my signatures in a blank white paper, they have written the above false and fabricated things and submitted before this court. The RPF police submitted the above things in order to put the applicant in troubles. Due to our simplicity, they have obtained the signatures in a blank papers and written as per their wishes sitting in their offices. Hence this affidavit is sworn to submit before the RCT, Bhubaneswar.”. CROSS EXAMINATION BY SRI K.C. MAHAPATRA, LD. STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT My name is Sri Hemanta Kumar Jena, aged about 32 years, S/o- Late Trailokya blank papers separately. I got information on 21.12.2018 at about 3:00 pm from my Jena, At-Barmadhia, P.S.-Basta, Dist.-Balasore. I

// 9 //

have supplied my signature in two the inquest made by GRP. I have seen the recovery of one tiffin carrier within a sister and I was proceeded to the Balasore, Hospital, I was present at the time of bag and his wearing apperls namely Lungi and Ganji nothing more was recovered funeral and I don't remember whether police has handed over me some papers in in my presence from the deceased. Police handed over the dead body to me for connection with the incident. Ranjan Das is the elder brother in law of the deceased. The RPF has approached me to put my signature on the blank paper. THROUGHT COURT Q-How is the deceased related to you? A- The deceased was my brother-in-law. Q-What type of work he used to do? A-He used to do all types of jobs as labour. Q-Can you the distance of the residence from the spot? A- It was around 5-6 km to the residence of the deceased from the spot. Q-Have you seen the site where the body of the deceased was found? A- I had gone subsequently. Q- Where was the body exactly found, whether near the bridge or before the bridge? A- While coming from Balasore to Haldipada side the body found after the crossing the bridge. Q- Does RPF and GRP staffs has taken any statement from you? A- Yes the RPF and GRP staffs had recorded my statement. Q- Can you say the distance from Balasore to Haldipada by train and how much time does it take to reach?

// 10 //

A- It was around 15-17 Km and it takes around 15-20 minutes to reach Haldipada. Q-Can you the name of the train in which he boarded and the Platform in which the train arrived? A- By Kharagpur-Balasore Passenger and the train arrived at Platfrom no.4. Q- As he used to travel daily from Balsore to Haldipada for his job then on the date of incident why had you gone to see off him? A- As, he was working with me on that day, and was not feeling well and intended to go to home (Haldipada) so, I accompanied him to the Balsore R/S. Q- You have stated in the affidavit that he was not feeling well and he was intended to go from Balasore to Haldipada, then why necessarily he take train whether the bus services are available or not? A- The bus stop was far away so he preferred the train services.”.

6.1. This Court after going through the evidence so laid by AW-1 and 2 finds that in support of the travelling of the deceased in the train on 21.12.2018, AW-2 clearly prove the same and no evidence has been laid by the respondents nor anything has been elicited in the cross-examination of both AW-1 and 2, controverting the stand taken by both the witnesses.

6.2. It is also found that in the charge sheet so filed on 25.06.2019, it was clearly admitted that the deceased was travelling in the train in question on 21.12.2018 and he died due to accidental fall down from the train. Post-mortem report also supports the cause of death as

// 11 //

claimed. Not only that no rebuttal evidence has been laid by the Respondents-Railways.

6.3. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the materials placed before it rejected the claim of the appellants vide the impugned judgment.

6.4. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned judgment dtd.09.05.2024 so passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar (in short ‘Tribunal’) in Case No. OA (IIU)/45/2019, remits the matter to the Tribunal to take a fresh decision on the claim, basing on the available materials and the decision so cited (supra). This Court directs the Tribunal to pass a fresh order within a period of three (3) months form the date of receipt of this order.

7. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat

Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 20-Aug-2026 17:50:44 Signature Not Verified