Railways Strictly Liable For Death Of Passenger Who Accidentally Fell From Train & Was Run Over: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that an accidental fall of a passenger from a moving train followed by he being run over by the same train or by another train, is an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 ('the Act') which makes the Railway Department strictly liable to pay compensation for the death.While holding the Railway liable for unfortunate death of a passenger in 2017, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –“It is a matter of common occurrence that an accidental fall from a moving train may culminate in the passenger being run over either by the same train or by another, thereby sustaining grievous or fatal injuries. Such a subsequent development does not alter the intrinsic character of the mishap as an 'accidental fall'.”On 19.01.2017, the deceased Krushna Chandra Sahoo was travelling in the Visakha Express from Berhampur to Bhubaneswar holding a valid ticket. While the train was running between Lingaraj and Bhubaneswar Railway Stations, due to a sudden jerk caused by the application of brakes and rush of passengers, the deceased lost his balance and fell from the running train, resulting in his instant death.The appellant originally filed an application under Section 124A of the Act before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar seeking statutory compensation on account of the death of the deceased, allegedly occasioned by an “untoward incident” as contemplated under Section 123(c)(2).The Tribunal, however, held that attendant circumstances do not demonstrate the accidental fall from the train and hence, the occurrence was not an “untoward incident”. Resultantly, the precondition for grant of compensation under Section 124A was held not to have been established. It was accordingly held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the liability of the Railways stood exempted under the exception clause of Section 124A. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed this first appeal before the High Court.The Court noted that a valid train ticket was recovered from the place of incident near the body of the deceased which shows that the deceased was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 2(29) of the Act. Thus, it found no substance in the observation of the Tribunal that there was no document to prove the existence of the said ticket. Justice Panigrahi reiterated the stipulation of Section 124A, i.e. once it is established that the death or injury has occurred as a result of an “untoward incident”, the Railway Administration is bound to pay compensation, irrespective of any negligence or default on its part, unless the case falls within the specific exceptions carved out in the proviso to Section 124A.He discarded the hypothetical observations made by the Tribunal attributing the cause of death to a probable suicidal attempt. “There is no material on record to suggest any alternative hypothesis, such as the deceased being present on the railway track independent of the train journey. On the contrary, the contemporaneous records, viz. the inquest report, post-mortem examination and the final police report, unequivocally attribute the cause of death to a fall from the train. In the circumstances, the Court holds that the incident squarely qualifies as an “untoward incident” under the statutory scheme, entitling the claimants to the benefit of compensation,” he added.The Tribunal speculated that the death might have occurred due to a run-over. However, the Court denied to make such artificial distinction in inviting liability. It was of the view that even an accidental fall from a moving train may culminate in the passenger being run over either by the same train or by another, thereby sustaining grievous or fatal injuries. Such a subsequent development also constitutes “accidental fall”.Citing the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar (2008), the Court observed that adopting a restrictive meaning to the expression 'accidental fall' of a passenger from a train under Section 123(c) of the Act would defeat the object of the legislation and unjustly deprive a large number of bona fide railway passengers of their rightful claim to compensation in railway accidents.Accordingly, it held the Railway liable for the death of the deceased and ordered the payment of compensation amount to the tune of rupees eight lakh with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until payment.Case Title: Santosh Ku. Sahoo v. Union of IndiaCase No: FAO No. 135 of 2020Date of Judgment: October 10, 2025Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, AdvocateCounsel for the Respondent: Mr. Amit Kumar Saa, Central Govt. CounselCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 129Click Here To Read/Download Order

Railways Strictly Liable For Death Of Passenger Who Accidentally Fell From Train & Was Run Over: Orissa High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Railways Strictly Liable For Death Of Passenger Who Accidentally Fell From Train & Was Run Over: Orissa High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers