Accidental Falls Culminating in Run-Over Remain “Untoward Incidents”: Orissa High Court Reaffirms Strict Liability and Evidentiary Primacy of Police Records over DRM Inquiries under Section 124A

Introduction

In Santosh Ku. Sahoo v. Union of India, FAO No. 135 of 2020, decided on 10 October 2025, the Orissa High Court (Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) set aside a dismissal by the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), Bhubaneswar, and awarded compensation for a death arising out of a railway accident. The case concerned the death of Krushna Chandra Sahoo, who allegedly fell from the Bisakha Express on 19 January 2017 due to overcrowding and a sudden jerk, and whose body was later found in a mutilated condition between Lingaraj and Bhubaneswar stations.

The Tribunal had rejected the claim, doubting both the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger and whether the incident qualified as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The High Court reversed, holding that the claimant established the foundational facts of bona fide passengership and accidental fall, and that subsequent run-over does not negate the statutory character of the mishap as an “untoward incident.” The Court further emphasized the strict liability regime under Section 124A and the evidentiary primacy of contemporaneous police and medical records over administrative inquiries like the DRM’s report.

Key issues addressed:

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
Whether the death occurred due to an “untoward incident” within Section 123(c)(2), attracting Section 124A’s strict liability.
Whether the Railways established any exception under the proviso to Section 124A (e.g., suicide, self-inflicted injury) to defeat liability.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the RCT’s dismissal, and awarded Rs. 8,00,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim application, to be deposited within three months. The Court held:

The deceased was a bona fide passenger. The inquest report recorded recovery of a valid journey ticket (No. VYA-51990424) issued at Berhampur, and the Railways neither pleaded nor proved otherwise.
The incident was an “untoward incident.” An accidental fall that subsequently results in the victim being run over (by the same or another train) remains an accidental fall in law; the later run-over does not change the incident’s intrinsic character.
Section 124A imposes strict liability on the Railways once a death is shown to result from an untoward incident, unless a proviso exception is proved. No such exception (e.g., suicide) was established here.
Contemporaneous police and medical records (inquest, post-mortem, final report) carried greater evidentiary weight than the DRM’s administrative report, which lacked probative value absent corroboration.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572: The Supreme Court affirmed that Section 124A embodies a strict/no-fault liability regime for “untoward incidents,” independent of any negligence by the Railways. It also clarified the burden-shifting structure: once the claimant proves the foundational facts (bona fide passengership and occurrence of untoward incident), the onus shifts to the Railways to establish an exception under the proviso (such as suicide or self-inflicted injury).
The Orissa High Court expressly relied on this approach to hold that the absence of negligence by the Railways is immaterial and that no exception was proved in the present case.
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527: The Supreme Court treated the Railways Act’s compensation provisions as beneficial legislation requiring a liberal and purposive interpretation. It cautioned against narrow readings of “accidental falling of a passenger,” noting that restrictive interpretations would defeat the statute’s remedial objective.
The High Court’s broad treatment of an accidental fall—holding that a subsequent run-over does not negate the untoward character of the incident—flows directly from this purposive, liberal interpretive approach.

2. Legal Reasoning and Application of Principles

The Court’s reasoning rests on four interlocking strands:

Strict Liability Under Section 124A: Once a death is shown to result from an “untoward incident,” liability follows without proof of negligence. The only way for the Railways to avoid liability is to prove a specific exception under the proviso. The Tribunal’s focus on fault or speculation about causation (in the absence of cogent proof of an exception) was misplaced.
Foundational Facts and Burden Shifting: The claimant established foundational facts by leading contemporaneous official records: inquest report, post-mortem report, and the police final report, all pointing to accidental fall. With that, the burden shifted to the Railways to establish an exception. They did not do so.
Evidentiary Hierarchy: Police/Medical Records vs. DRM Report: The High Court treated statutory and investigative documents prepared in the discharge of official duty (inquest, PM report, final report) as carrying a presumption of correctness unless rebutted by cogent evidence. By contrast, the DRM’s inquiry was an administrative exercise lacking evidentiary sanctity and independent corroboration; it could not unseat the police/medical findings.
Accidental Fall Followed by Run-Over: The Tribunal inferred suicide because the body was found severed. The High Court rejected this as conjecture. It is common that accidental falls are followed by run-over events; such later events do not alter the original accident’s character. Absent concrete proof of suicide or self-inflicted injury, the statutory presumption in favor of an untoward incident prevails.

3. Establishing Bona Fide Passengership

Section 2(29) of the Railways Act defines a “passenger” for the purpose of liability. The Court credited the inquest record noting recovery of ticket No. VYA-51990424 issued from Berhampur. The Railways neither pleaded forgery nor produced evidence discrediting the ticket’s existence or genuineness. The Court thus found the deceased to be a bona fide passenger.

This aspect is important procedurally: while primary production of the ticket is ideal, its existence can be proved through contemporaneous official records and sworn testimony. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal erred by demanding more than what the law requires, especially in a beneficial legislation context.

4. Treatment of Statutory Exceptions Under the Proviso to Section 124A

The Railways argued suicide/self-inflicted injury by pointing to the body’s mutilation and the train crew’s lack of observation. The Court found:

No independent evidence of suicidal intent or self-harm.
No cogent proof that the deceased accessed the track independent of the journey.
Official records consistently recorded accidental fall.

Hence, none of the proviso exceptions were attracted. Mere conjecture based on bodily condition is insufficient to displace the statutory presumption and documentary record.

5. Quantum of Compensation and Interest

The Court awarded the presently notified standard compensation for death—Rs. 8,00,000—with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until payment, to be deposited within three months and disbursed as per law. This aligns with the statutory compensation framework wherein quantification for death claims is indexed by notification, with interest ensuring timely compliance.

6. Impact and Prospective Significance

The judgment carries several practical and doctrinal consequences:

Clarification on “Fall vs. Run-Over”: Tribunals and lower courts must treat a later run-over as a potential sequela of an accidental fall, not as a separate event negating the “untoward incident” character. This reduces speculative denial of claims based solely on mutilation patterns.
Evidentiary Guidance: Contemporaneous police and medical documents prepared in official capacity take precedence over uncorroborated administrative inquiries like DRM reports. This guidance streamlines adjudication and curbs reliance on documents of lesser probative value.
Liberal Proof of Bona Fide Passengership: Recovery of the ticket recorded in inquest/police papers can suffice. Lack of a physical ticket in court is not per se fatal if official records reliably attest to it.
Reaffirmation of Strict Liability: The decision reinforces that negligence is irrelevant under Section 124A once an untoward incident is established, and that the burden to prove exceptions lies squarely with the Railways.
Consistency with Supreme Court Jurisprudence: By applying Rina Devi and Prabhakaran’s purposive approach, the judgment fortifies a claimant-friendly framework consistent with the beneficial nature of railway compensation law.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Untoward Incident” (Section 123(c)(2)): Includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train. If a person accidentally falls while traveling and is later run over, it is still an untoward incident; the later run-over does not change the original character of the mishap.
Strict (No-Fault) Liability (Section 124A): The Railways must pay compensation for death or injury from an untoward incident without the claimant proving negligence. The only defenses are limited exceptions (e.g., suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication), which the Railways must prove.
Bona Fide Passenger: A person lawfully traveling with a valid ticket/pass; establishing this status is essential. It can be proved through direct evidence (ticket) or reliable official records (inquest/police papers noting ticket recovery).
Foundational Facts and Burden Shifting: Claimants first show basic facts: bona fide passenger and occurrence of an untoward incident. Thereafter, the onus shifts to the Railways to prove a statutory exception to avoid liability.
Evidentiary Primacy of Official Records: Inquest reports, post-mortem reports, and police final reports are contemporaneous official records that carry a presumption of correctness unless rebutted by cogent evidence. Administrative inquiries (e.g., DRM reports) typically have lesser probative weight unless corroborated.

Conclusion

The Orissa High Court’s decision in Santosh Ku. Sahoo consolidates and clarifies crucial facets of railway accident jurisprudence. It reaffirms that:

An accidental fall remains an “untoward incident” even if the victim is subsequently run over; mutilation alone does not justify a suicide inference.
Section 124A imposes strict liability: once foundational facts are proved, the Railways must establish a statutory exception to avoid liability.
Contemporaneous police and medical records are to be accorded higher evidentiary value than uncorroborated administrative reports like the DRM’s.
Bona fide passengership can be established through official records noting ticket recovery, consistent with the remedial purpose of the statute.

In setting aside the Tribunal’s denial and awarding compensation with interest, the Court aligns with the Supreme Court’s guidance in Rina Devi and Prabhakaran, steering adjudication toward a liberal, purposive application of a beneficial statute. The ruling offers clear direction to Tribunals on evidentiary assessment and curbs speculative defenses, thereby strengthening timely and equitable relief for victims of railway accidents.