Orissa HC orders ₹9.23 lakh compensation for passenger’s death in Neelachal Express

Sarbeswar Swain, 19, allegedly fell inside a train after a sudden jolt on Dec 25, 2006, sustained brain injuries, and died two days later at Gaya Government Hospital

Bhubaneswar: The Orissa High Court has directed East Coast Railways to pay ₹9.23 lakh in compensation to the family of a passenger who died after falling inside a compartment of the Neelachal Express in 2006.

The high court in 2023 noted that the postmortem report cited “shock and haemorrhage” as the cause of death. (Representative photo)

A single bench of justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, while allowing an appeal filed by the deceased’s heir, set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s repeated rejection of the claim and highlighted the strict liability of the Railways under the Railways Act, 1989.

Sarbeswar Swain, who was travelling from Allahabad to Cuttack, allegedly fell inside the train compartment after a sudden jolt and sustained brain injuries on December 25, 2006. Swain, who was 19 years old at the time of the accident, was shifted to Gaya Government Hospital, where he died during treatment two days later.

His family had filed a petition seeking ₹4 lakh with interest in 2007 under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim in 2014, attributing the death to “cardiac arrest.”

The high court in 2023 noted that the postmortem report cited “shock and haemorrhage” as the cause of death. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication, but the Tribunal once again dismissed the petition, holding that a fall “inside the train” did not amount to an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.

Rejecting the Tribunal’s interpretation, the high court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008), where the Court held that the distinction between falling “from” a train and falling “inside” a train was legally unsustainable.

“This is a case of a bona fide passenger who suffered injuries during the course of train travel. The Tribunal’s attempt to distinguish between a fall from the train and a fall inside the train is fallacious,” justice Panigrahi observed.

Noting that Article 21 guarantees protection of life and liberty, the Court added, “The law must shield bereaved families from prolonged litigation. To deny compensation would frustrate the very objective of railway law.”

The court said that while the prescribed compensation at the time of the accident was ₹4 lakh, interest accrued at 7% over 19 years raised the amount to over ₹9.23 lakh—higher than the ₹8 lakh fixed under the 2016 amendment to the Railways Compensation Rules.

Accordingly, it directed East Coast Railways to deposit ₹9.23 lakh in the heir’s bank account within four months, failing which interest at 7% per annum would apply until realisation.