Telangana High Court
Gade Sivarami Reddy And Another vs The Union Of India, Rep.By Its Gm, Sc Rly, ... on 7 July, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.433 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed by the applicants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2012 in OAA No.03 of 2001 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, wherein the claim petition filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of G.Madhusudhana Reddy, was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Commissioner.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the applicants before the Tribunal is that G. Madhusudhana Reddy died in an untoward incident on the intervening night of 27/28.01.2000. In the claim petition, it is stated that the applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased. It is contended that on 27/28.01.2000 the deceased G. Madhusudhana Reddy, along with his uncle, C. Subba Reddy at Renigunta Railway Station boarded the train No.6010 Mail, which runs between Madras to Mumbai Central regularly. On that fateful day, the deceased, 2 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 along with his uncle, boarded the general compartment of the said train, which was crowded with heavy rush, due to which they couldn't move ahead and stayed back near toilets of the said compartment. When the train reached Nandalur Station, both the deceased and his uncle tried to get down from the train but it went in vain and returned near the door. The applicants contend that when the train was passing Km.No.231/3-4 post beat, between Vontimitta-Mantapampalle Railway Station at 03:25 A.M, the driver of the train applied sudden breaks, as a result, the deceased who was standing near the door to get down at Cuddapah, fell down from the running train and crushed into pieces and died immediately. On 28.01.2000, at 09:00 A.M., the dead body of the deceased was found by the Gangman at 231/3-4 post between Cuddapah-Vontimitta Railway lines. Hence, the applicants made the claim that on account of accident, they have lost their son and filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the respondent.
3. The respondent filed written statement denying the averments and stated that there is no cause of action for the applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(C)(2) or Section 124-A of the Act. The respondent further 3 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 stated that the incident, if any, was caused by the criminal acts of the deceased alone and as such acts disentitle the applicants from claiming any compensation for such self-inflicted injuries and due to his own criminal act/negligence, he met with the said accident, therefore the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the Deceased G. Madhusudhana Reddy?
2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide Passenger of train No. 6010 mail travelling from Renigunta to nandalur on the night between 27/28.01.2000?
3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train between Vontimitta-
Mantapampalle in the morning of
28.01.2000?
4. To what relief?
5. The applicants, in order to substantiate their claim, examined the first applicant as AW1 and the uncle of the deceased, who was travelling with the deceased at the time of 4 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 the accident as AW2 and got marked the documents as Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the Respondent, RW1 was examined but no documentary evidence was adduced.
6. The Learned Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly taking into consideration of the documents under Exs.A1 to A4, observed that the applicants have utterly failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died as a result of an untoward incident of accident fall from the train and on the said findings dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
7. Heard both sides and perused the entire record.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have proved their case by examining AW1 and AW2 eyewitness and relying on documents under Exs.A1 to A4, but the learned Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously dismissed the claim application on the ground that evidence of AW2 does not support the case of the applicants and further erred in holding that he was a set-up witness and the applicants have come up with a completely un-substantiated and fabricated case, with
5 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 sole objective of filing a false case in order to seek the scene unlawful gain, which is against the evidence and material on record. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the claim application and interference of this Court is unwarranted and prays to dismiss the appeal.
10. In view of the rival contentions made by both sides, this Court has perused the entire record. The father of the deceased i.e., the applicant No. 1 was examined as AW1, who has reiterated the contents of the claim application and stated about the manner of the accident. Further, AW2 i.e., uncle of the deceased, who travelled along with deceased, stated that the deceased was holding a valid first class pass and he, along with the deceased tried to get down at Nandalur and as they could not succeed due to the overcrowd, they decided to get down at very next station and stood next to door of the compartment. In the process, the deceased slipped, fell down from the compartment and the fateful accident had happened.
11. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the deceased accidentally fell down from the 6 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 train on 27/28.01.2000 at 03.25 AM; the body was found by the Keyman at 14.20 hours on 28.01.2000 and the inquest was conducted on 29.01.2000 at 10.40 hours and at that time, the body was lying between Vontimitta - Mantapampally railway stations and the legs touched the track; from 03.25 AM of 28.01.2000 till the recovery of the body at 2.20 P.M., so many trains have passed through that track; if the legs of the deceased were touching the track, any of the driver of the train or any other passenger or any Keyman on duty would have reported the matter to the railway authorities before the body was found at 14.20 hours; the story narrated by the applicants and exaggerated by AW2 is difficult to accept. The learned Tribunal has not accepted the evidence of AW2 for the reason that though AW2 had witnessed the incident of falling of the deceased from the moving train but, he kept quiet without making any efforts to give complaint to Railway Police or immediately bringing it to the notice of railway guards, but no such efforts were made by AW2. The learned Tribunal further opined that the place of Cuddapah railway station lies more than 20 km away and the body of the deceased was found by Keyman at 2.20 PM on 28.01.2000 and thus, AW2 was not an eyewitness to the incident. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased committed 7 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 suicide, as AW2 being uncle of the deceased did not take immediate steps soon after the deceased falling from the train.
12. It is pertinent to state that AW2 has categorically stated that when the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train in between Mantapampalli and Vontimetta railway Station, he tried to stop the train by pulling alarm chain, but it went in vain and the train stopped only at Cuddapah and he reported the matter to concerned railway station and as it was dark light, he was asked by the railway officials to wait till day light and also advised him to approach railway police. Accordingly, AW2 reported the matter to railway police, who made several enquires and took AW2 to the place of occurrence on the same day afternoon hours and found the dead body of deceased in the early hours of 28.01.2000. Since the incident has happened at 3.25 AM, obviously, there would be pitch dark and since the accident occurred between Vontimitta - Mantapampally railway stations, which is forsaken place or in other words uninhabited place, in normal parlance, it cannot be expected by people to notice that some accident has taken place and that a dead body was lying at the scene of offence. Moreover, since the dead body was cut into several tiny pieces, none can distinguish that the said pieces belongs to 8 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 human body or otherwise and the chance of noticing such tiny pieces by loco pilot or by the rail guard is also very minimal. Even assuming for a moment that it is a suicidal death, AW2 being the uncle of the deceased and travelling along with the deceased in the train, would make definite efforts to stop the deceased from making such an attempt. Since the railway station authorities have advised AW2 to wait till morning and report to the police officials, considerable time might have been taken for AW2 to complete all the formalities and reach the scene of offence. Merely because AW2 could not reach the scene of offence within a reasonable time and merely because there are certain minor contradictions between the evidence of AWs 1 and 2, the evidence of AW2 cannot be brushed aside. If two interpretations are possible, the interpretation that is beneficial to the applicants has to be preferred, consistent with the law as laid down in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar1.
13. Moreover, reliance can placed on the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Kamrunnissa v. Union of India,2 wherein it was observed as follows: 1
(2008) 9 SCC 527 2 AIR 2017 SC 1436 9 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 "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."
14. Keeping in view all facts and circumstantial evidence available on the file and the observations made by the Apex Court in Kamrunnissa (supra), this Court is of the considered view that though mere absence of ticket with the deceased will not negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger, however, initial burden will be on the applicants, which was duly discharged by them by adducing the evidence of AWs 1 and
2. On the other hand, when the respondent authorities are suspecting or denying with regard to occurrence of any untoward incident, it is the obligation of the respondent - railway authorities to conduct an enquiry as mandated in Rule 10 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 7 of the Railway Passengers (manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. In A. Sreenivasa Rao and another v. Union of India, Secunderabad3, learned Single Judge of this Court held as under:
"12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo & another v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway. Para 3 of the said judgment reads as under:
"3. Though rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') mandates the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident., admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before the RCT on 27.2.2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23.4.2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased detrained from the moving train of D Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railway was accepted by the RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal, i.e., FAO No.535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of the RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same by cryptic and non-speaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award and the reasons assigned in support of the same do not warrant any interference."
15. Even in the case on hand, the railway authorities have failed to conduct any kind of enquiry to find out as to whether 3 CMA No.862 of 2017 decided on 22.04.2022 11 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 any untoward incident has occurred during the relevant point of time.
16. So far as the issue of "bona fide passenger" is concerned, from the perusal of evidence of AW1, who is the father of the deceased, it is evident that the deceased was travelling with first class privilege pass bearing No. 658417. However, uncle of the deceased was travelling in general compartment and the deceased accompanied his uncle in the same compartment. It is not the case of the respondent that the deceased was not authorized to travel in general compartment. As the deceased was holding first class privilege pass, it will not disentitle him from travelling in general compartment or restrict the deceased from travelling in specified compartment. In these circumstances, it can safely be held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Railway Claims Tribunal without considering all these aspects came to the wrong conclusion by dismissing the claim application of the applicants and hence, the said findings of the Tribunal are hereby set aside. Hence, the applicants are entitled for compensation.
17. Coming to the rate of compensation, in case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment in 2010, the 12 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 prevailing basic figure in respect of death case was Rs.4.00 lakhs, which has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.8.00 lakhs as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016.
18. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav4, wherein it was held as follows:
"10. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Devi, 2018 ACJ 1441 (SC), is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures would be the measure of 4 (2004) 2 SCC 1 13 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000/-. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/-
the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear."
19. The applicants are also entitled for interest @ 7% per annum on the compensation amount as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kamukayi v. Union of Inida5. From the date of accident i.e., 28.01.2000 to the date of order i.e., 07.07.2023, the applicants are entitled for interest for 23 years 5 months = 281 months. Thus, the applicants are entitled for the compensation along with interest as mentioned below:
20. Thus, the interest entitled by the applicants is calculated as follows:
Rs. 4,00,000/- x 7/100 = Rs.6,55,667/- (for 23 years 05 months i.e., 281 months) 5 Civil Appeal No. 3799 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17062/2022) decided on 16.05.2023 14 MGP,J CMA_433_2012
21. Therefore, the interest along with the compensation amount, to which the applicants are entitled prevailing at the time of the accident comes to Rs.10,55,667/- (Rs.4,00,000/- + Rs.6,55,667/-).
22. However, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Radha Yadav's case (supra), if, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of latest amendment, the applicants would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. In the instant case, the final figure comes to Rs.10,55,667/-. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,55,667/-.
23. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, in OAA No.03 of 2001 is set aside and thereby compensation of Rs.10,55,667/- is awarded to the applicants. The respondent Railways is directed to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
15 MGP,J CMA_433_2012 On such deposit, both the applicants are entitled to equal shares without furnishing any security. No order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 07.07.2023 AS