1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury

F.M.A. 894 of 2018

Jhuma Rani Pramanick

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors.

For the appellant:

For the respondent Nos. 1-3/U.O.I.:

Mr. S.N. Sukul, Adv.

Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Rashmi Bothra, Adv.

Ms. Jayati Chowdhury, Adv.

Ms. Sucheta Mitra, Adv.

Last Heard on: February 23, 2026

Judgment on: May 22, 2026

Biswaroop Chowdhury,J:

The appellant before this Court was an applicant in an application under

Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 read with Section 124 -A of

Railways Act 1989 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 08-02-

2017 passed by Hon’ble Vice-Chairman Railway Claim Tribunal Kolkata Bench

in claim Application No. OA (IIU)/Kol/2011/200.

2

The case of the appellant before the Learned Railway Claim Tribunal may

be summed up thus:

On 25-07-2010 the husband of the applicant since deceased was

travelling Ex-Barhampur to Sealdah to fetch gangajal on the head of Lord Shiva

from Sherafulli having a valid IInd class railway ticket. Due to over crowded

pressure and sudden jerk he accidentally fell from the running train between

Krishnanagar City Jn. and Badkulla station. and died on spot. Binay Halder

and Somnath Halder Saw the incident Police case was registered at Krishnagar

GRPS vide U/D case No-20/2010 dated 25-07-2010.

The Union of India Railway Authority filed written objection and denied

allegation and contested the case. ISSUES were framed and evidence was

adduced.

Learned Judge Railway Claim Tribunal upon considering the evidence

and hearing the Learned Advocates by Judgment and Award dated 08-02-2011

was pleased to dismiss the claim case by observing as follows:

‘6.4. Evidence of the applicant is self serving. The applicant has not

produced the alleged eye-witnesses Binay Halder and Somnath Halder and

examined them.

There is no cogent evidence furnished on behalf of the applicant which

establishes that her husband fell from a train and succumbed to his injuries.

No doubt that Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a beneficial legislation. However

3

there is hardly any scope of taking deviation or departure from clear

unambiguous provisions of the Act. There is absolutely no evidence to

ascertain the cause of death of the applicant’s husband was due to fall from a

running train. Tribunal must pay an obedience to the provisions of law and

cannot grant claims in disregardful of law. It is the duty of the Court awarding

compensation from the Public fund, to award strictly as per compensation Rule

1990 and undue leniency needs to be avoided.

Keeping in view the discussion made above I hold that the applicant has

conclusively failed to prove that her husband accidentlly fell down from a

running train and died thereof.

The issue is answered against the applicant and the case of the applicant

does not come under the purview of Section 123 (C) (2) of the Railways Ac t

1989.’

The appellant being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Learned

Tribunal has come up with the instant appeal.

Heard Learned Advocate for the appellant and Learned Advocate for the

respondent. Perused the materials on record.

Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the said case was filed

in the Railway Claims Tribunal Claiming compensation in terms of provision of

Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989 on the ground of accidental falling of a

passenger named Late Amrit/Amrita Pramanick from train carrying passenger

4

which was an untoward incident in terms of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways

Act 1989. Learned Advocate further submits that the inquest report as

prepared by the Police Authority clearly reflects the fact of falling down from

the train carrying passenger herein named as Amrit Praminik S/O. Brindaban

Pramanik of Village-Belpukur, Post Office-Balarampur, Police Station-

Balarampur Dist-Murshidabad who was travelling with valid Rail Ticket being

no-H-08083178-103178 dated 24-07-10. Learned Advocate also submits that

in Final report it is clearly recorded that the deceased fell down from Down

(DN) 112 Lalgola Passenger train at about 01.15 hrs and one Railway ticket

seized from the possession of deceased from Berhampur Railway Stat ion to

Barrack Pur Railway Station. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate that in

the final report submitted by police Authority it recorded that as per PM report

no-799/10 dated 25

th

July 2010 the death is due to shock and haemmorrage

resulting from above mentioned injuries which are ante-mortem and seems to

be accidental in nature. Learned Advocate further submits that the report

basically process that the accident happened due to falling from the said

passenger train which was a Lalgola-Sealdah Passenger train which departed

Berhampur Court Rly. Station around 10-55 at night (10-55 P.M.) and reached

Krishnanagar around 1 -00AM. The accident happened in between

Krishnanagar and Badkulla Rly. Station, and Badkulla Station is the next

station after Krishnanagar towards Sealdah side. Learned Advocate also

submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in observing that the applicant has

5

not furnished the Railway Ticket when the said ticket was seized by the Police

Authority.

Learned Advocate submits that in the order it is stated that name

appearing in the claim application, death certificate I/D. Card as Amrit

Pramanik son of Brindaban Pramanik it is vehemently stated that the claimant

had nothing to do in the matter, as the Police Authority at the tune of making

inquest report added one word ‘a’ with Amrit which made it Amrita by spelling,

but the man Amrit and by Police Authorities spelling as Amrita was duly

identified as same and identical person by father’s name and Address in all the

claimant’s documents and Police authorities’ document.

Amrit Pramanik and Amrita Pramanik is not an issue at all sinc e the

Police Authority handed over the dead body to his father Brindaban Pramanik

on proper identification. In addition to that the claimant Jhuma Rani Pramanik

actually affirmed Amrit Pramanik as her husband with proper identification in

both of the claim application and affidavit in chief.

Learned Advocate submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in not

concluding that there was an untoward incident as defined under Section

123(c)(2) of the Railways Act 1989, as there is no strand of conjecture or

Surmise or speculation in the eye of law wherein the specific cause of the death

of deceased has been recorded in the Final report as produced by the Enquiry

officer of the GRPS/Krishnanagar endorsed with the duty by the officer in

charge and placed before the Learned Magistrate under Section 174 of the

6

Code of Criminal Procedure. The said report was not challenged, and no prayer

was made before the Tribunal to summon the Police Officer who conducted the

enquiry for the purpose of examination.

Learned Advocate further submits that the Respondent Railway

Authority with a very ill motive to suppress the fact of the said accident did not

produce DRM report before the Learned Tribunal though as per clause-4 of the

manner of Investigation of (Untoward Incident) Rules 2003 and amended rules

2007 DRM, Divisional Railway Manager’s report ought to have been placed in

the Learned Tribunal so as to bring the fact and finding of each and every

untoward incident as came out from enquiry.

Learned Advocate relies upon the following Judicial Decisions.

Union of India VS Probhakarn Vijaya Kumar and ors.

Civil Appeal No-6898 of 2002. (Supreme Court of India)

Union of India VS Rina Devi.

Civil Appeal No. 4945 of 2018.

(Supreme Court of India)

Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim VS State of Assam.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. [Diary No. 20674 of 2017]

7

Learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the Appeal preferred

by the appellant is devoid of merits. Learned Advocate further submits that the

Learned Tribunal upon due appreciation of evidence came to a finding that the

claimants have failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger

of the train. Learned Advocate also submits that the appeal is filed on

misconceived grounds.

Learned Advocate has countered the grounds of appeal as follows:

GROUND-No-1 Failure to Appreciate Gravity of the Matter With regard to

Ground-I Learned Advocate submits that the Lea rned Tribunal duly

appreciated the facts and law, including the gravity of the matter. The

dismissal was based on the Appellant’s failure to prove essential elements

under Section 124A of the Railways Act viz. that the deceased was a bona fide

passenger with a valid ticket and that the incident qualified as an ‘untoward

incident’ Mere reliance on Police reports does not suffice without corroborative

evidence from the Railways or direct proof of ticket possession.

GROUND.II Spirit of Beneficial Legislation (Section 124-A) With regard to

ground no-II Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that while Section

124A is beneficial it does not mandate compensation without proof. The

tribunal interpreted it correctly requiring evidence of an untoward incident and

bona fide status. The Appellant failed to produce the alleged ticket (claimed to

be served by GRP) or any witness to the incident rendering the claim

unsubstantiated.

8

GROUND-III. Bona Fide Travelling with valid Ticket. With regard to

Ground III Learned Advocate submits that the Appellant relies on Police reports

mentioning a ‘seized’ ticket but no ticket was produced before the Tribunal.

Mere reference in secondary documents (Inquest Report) is insufficient without

the original or authenticated copy. The Tribunal noted this lacuna and without

proof of purchase journey details or recovery from the deceased the case

remains unproved. No eye witness or railway record corroborates the claim.

Ground No. IV. Police Inquest and Final Report on Accidental Fall. With regard

to Ground-No-IV Learned Advocate submits that GRP reports (Inquest Report

Exhibit A/3-Final Police Report Exhibit A/4 and Post Mortem Report-Exhibit A-

5) attributing death to a fall from the train at 01.15 hrs on 25-07-2010 and

ruling out foul play are not binding on the Railways or the Tribunal. No railway

official witnessed or reported the incident and no DRM inquiry under the

Railway (Untoward Incident) Rules 2003 (as amended in 2007) was initiated as

the Railways had no knowledge of any such accident. The burden to prove the

incident lies on the Appellant not the Respondent.

Ground V. GRP’s Authority under Section 174 CrPC. Learned Advocate

with regard to ground V. submits that while GRP is empowered under Section

174 C.r.P.C. to inquire into unnatural deaths such reports are not conclusive

for compensation claims under the Railways Act. They serve a limited purpose

of ascertaining cause of death for magisterical closure, not for establishing

railway liability. The Tribunal rightly required independent proof which was

absent.

9

Ground VI. Final Report Establishing Untoward Incident. Learned

Advocate with regard to Ground VI submits that the Final Police Report

(Exhibit A/4) concludes ‘accidental case’ but fails to link it definitively to the

train or prove passenger status. It is hearsay without supporting evidence. The

Tribunal appreciated this and dismissed the claim for want of direct proof.

Ground VII: No opportunity to produce Witness.

The Appellant’s evidence stage was closed after her own affidavit and

documents as per procedural rules. No application for additional witnesses was

made and the Tribunal proceeded fairly. The appellant cannot now complain of

procedural lapses she did not challenge timely. The Appellants relied solely an

self-serving documents without seeking to summer GRP affidavits or others.

Ground No VIII- Respondents Lack of Evidence and Non -submission of

DRM. Report With regard to Ground VIII Learned Advocate submits that t he

burden is on the claimant not Respondents to prove the case. Non-submission

of DRM Report under manner of inquiry into Untoward Incidents Rules 2003

(amended 2007) does not imply suppression it is optional and not mandatory

for Tribunal Proceeding. The Tribunal drew no adverse inference, as the

Appellant’s evidence was insufficient ab-initio.

GROUND IX and X.- Variation in Spelling of Deceased Name-Learned Advocate

with regard to Ground IX and X submits that this is not a ‘simple variation’ but

a fundamental discrepancy affecting identity Police/Post-Mortem report.

(Exhibit A/5) refer to Amrita Praminik’ and explicitly dead-body in the Inquest

10

Report. (Exhibit A/3). The Election I/D card of the deceased shows ‘Amrit’ No

separate affidavit explained this mismatch including the apparent discrepancy.

Learned Advocate submits that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

As the present case relates to claim of compensation on account of

untoward incident under Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989 at the outset it

is necessary to discuss the provisions contained in the said Section.

„Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989. Section 124A of the Railways Act

1989 provides as follows:

S. 124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident – When in the

course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not

there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway

administration shall notwithstanding anything contained in any other law be

liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that

extent only for loss occasioned by the death of or injury to a passenger as a

result of such untoward incident. Provided that no compensation shall be

payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or

suffers injury due toa) Suicide or attempted suicide by him. b) Self inflicted

injury. c) His own criminal act. d) Any act committed by him in a state of

intoxication or insanity. e) Any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical

treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the

said untoward incident. Explanation – For the purpose of this section

“Passenger” includes i) a railway servant on duty – and ii) a person who has

11

purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date

or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.‟

The instant case arose from the recovery of an unidentified dead-body

from the Railway track. between Krishnanagar Junction and Badkulla Station.

On 26.07.2010 at 06.15 hours ASI Krishnanagar received a Railway memo

from message no. DY 58/2517/10 that between Krishnanagar City Junction

station and Badkulla Station an untoward incident happened at KM port No-

97/18 in between L/C gate no. 67/T and 66/E as reported by driver that an

identified dead-body lying inside up and on line. On the basis of the Railway

memo the Police Authority started UD Case No-20/10 dated 26-07-10. Started

duly endorsed by O/C being GRPS. Post-Mortem examination to know the

actual cause of death. During enquiry from Binay Halder and Somnath Halder

dead body of the victim was identified. The Police Authority seized at Railway

Ticket from the possession of the deceased. It was from BPCKS to BKPRS. On

receipt of the post mortem report and from statement of witnesses it was

ascertained that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from

the above mentioned injuries/which are accidental in nature. The report was

submitted and it was pointed that the death was due to accident and there was

no foul play. In the instant case no enquiry was conducted by the Railway

Authority to ascertain the cause of death. As the Railway Authority respondent

herein did not grant compensation to the claimants being family members of

the victim the application under section-16 was moved before Railway claim

Tribunal Kolkata Bench. In the instant case claimant appellant adduced

12

evidence. The appellant in her examination in Chief corroborated the

statements made in the claim petition. She has filed documents namely under

Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Voter identity card of the victim

and voter identity card of the applicant The applicant stated in her cross

examination that the name of her father in law is Brindabon Pramanik and the

name of her mother in law is Sandhya Pramanik. They are alive. She further

stated that her husband was a painter she also stated that on the fateful date

of the incident she was not travelling with her husband, and she is not the eye

witness of the incident. Thus from the evidence of the applicant Jamuna Devi

the relationship with the victim is established. From the cross examination

nothing could be shaken with regard to the victim travelling in the train to pour

ganajal on the head of Lord Shiva. In the case of Railway Untoward incident

when family members or friends of the victim do not travel with the victim

there is no scope for the victims family to examine eye witness thus police

Report has to be relied In the event Police Report inspires confidence the same

should be accepted, to award compensation.

In the inquest report made by the Police Authority on the basis of

statement of witnesses Police Authority came to know that the victim was

sitting near the entry door of the compartment and fell down from the train and

died. In the report submitted under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure before the Magistrate it is observed that as per report of Dr. Ajit

Kumar Biswas death is due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries

which are antemortem and seem t o be accidental in nature. It is further

13

observed that there is no foul play behind the death and it is an accidental

case. A railway ticket from BPS R/S to Barakpur R/S was also seized from the

possession of deceased. There is no contrary evidence submitt ed by

Respondent Railway Authority in the instant case thus the Police Report has to

be accepted.

As Railway Authority is State under Article 12 of the Constitution it is

incumbent upon the Authority to collect the evidence with regard to discovery

of dead body from Railway Track so that genuine compensation cases are

honoured and frivolous cases are dismissed. Although Railway Authority

conducts enquiry and submits report but in the instant case no enquiry was

conducted.

In the case of Kharka Bahadur-Chettri VS Union of India. FMA-1134 of

2024 High Court at Calcutta it was observed as follows:-

„Before proceeding to decide the material in issue it is to be remembered

that Railway Compensation provision under Section 125A of the Railways Act

1989 is a beneficial provision thus a liberal approach is to be taken so that the

object of the legislation is achieved and not frustrated. The Railway Authority

which is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution if upon detail enquiry and

considering Police report has reasonable grounds to believe that it is an

untoward incident should pay the compensation to the victim or his family

without relegating them to Courts or Tribunals for such compensation.

14

In the case of compensation claim before Tribunals or Courts it is also

necessary to consider that in case of death of a person by railway accident in a

place far from his residence it is not possible to arrange for eye witnesses, thus

the applicant has to depend on the report of the Police Authority Railway

Authority and his knowledge of the victim travelling in a train.

In the case of Smt. Yellomma and others VS Union of India (Supra) the

Hon‟ble Court observed as follows:

„22. It is not possible for the claimants to examine a person as they have

witnessed that the deceased has purchased tickets and also it is not possible for

the claimants to examine a person as eye witness to the incident. If any

passenger accompanied his friend or relative, then it may be possible to examine

that person as eye witness. But where a passenger travels alone along with

other stranger passenger, then after the incident and when the claim petition is

filed before the Tribunal, it is not possible for the claimant to examine any person

as witness to the incident. It is not expected in this regard that the claimants to

examine any person as eye witness. Expectation by the railway administration

that the claimants should examine eye witness is ridicule on the part of the

railway administration and it is wholly unwarranted. What the Railway

Department prepares report by the Divisional Railway Manager as stated above

certain duties are prescribed on the railway authorities as per Rules 6 to 13 of

Rules, 2003 (stated supra).

15

23. Rules 6 to 13 as above stated impose bounden duty on the officials of

railway authorities to perform their duties and discharge their functions when an

untoward-24. NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 incident occurs.

Therefore, what the railway authorities could do and ought to perform their

functions, it cannot be expected from the claimants‟ side. Therefore, it is not a

rivers burden on the claimants to prove each and every from the claimants,

which the railway authorities ought to do.

24. When the respondent-Railway has taken the contention that the

claimant has not produced the railway ticket, but certain duties are cast on the

Railway as per Rule 4 of Rule, 2003.‟

Upon considering the facts of the case and the Police report and the fact

that Union of India has not adduced any evidence this Court is of the view that

the claimant has been able to prove that death of the victim is an untoward

incident. Thus claimant is entitled to compensation as prayed for.

Hence this Appeal FMA-894 of 2018 stands allowed. the Judgment and

Award dated 08-02-2017 passed by Learned Railway Claim Tribunal Kolkata

Bench in Claim Application No. OA (IIU) KOL/2011/0200 is set aside. The

appellant/applicant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 400,000/- along with

interest @6% per annum from date of filing claim case till today. Such payment

shall be made by making the deposit before Registrar General High Court

Calcutta within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this Order.

16

The claimant/appellant will be entitled to withdraw the compensation

upon compliance of necessary formalities.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be

made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)