Telangana High Court
Maram Ketha vs The Union Of India on 29 November, 2024
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.920 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants - applicants aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.09.2019 in O.A II (u) No.109 of 2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Secunderabad (for short 'Tribunal').
2. The claimants are the wife, daughter, and son of the deceased Maram Posham, who died in an untoward train accident. The deceased was aged about 35 years. He was a shepherd and was living by doing agriculture. He was a resident of Newvaripet, Komatichenu, Kazipet village, Dharmaraopet Mandal, Adilabad District. With an intention to go to the house of the sister of applicant No.1 - Lingakka, at Andhevelli Village, near Sirpur Kagaznagar to purchase sheep, on 01.11.2016 at about 12:00 noon, the deceased left the house informing the applicant No.1 that he would go to Sirpur Kagaznagar in a train by boarding at Bellampally Railway Station. On the next day, when the applicant No.1 enquired about her husband, she came to know that he did not reach Andhevelli Village. Then the applicant No.1 started searching about her husband by enquiring here and there. On the advice of some neighbours, Dr.GRR,J 2 CMA No.920 of 2019 the applicant No.1 went to Bellampally Railway Police and enquired about her husband. The Bellampally Railway Police informed her that on 02.11.2016, a dead body of a male person, aged about 35 years was found in between Bellampally and Rechini Railway Stations beside railway track and basing on the information given by the Railway Deputy Station Superintendent, Mancherial, an FIR was issued in Cr No. 221 of 2016 dated 02.11.2016 and that the Railway Police, Mancherial conducted an enquiry and after inquest and postmortem, performed the funeral rites with government expenditure. On police showing the photos, clothes etc, the applicant No. 1 identified the person died in the untoward accident as that of her husband M.Posham. The Railway Police Bellampally and Railway Police Mancherial took her statement. The applicants filed an application under Section 24-A of the Railway Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 15% per annum for the death of M.Posham in an untoward incident from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization.
3. The respondent - Railways filed written statement and called for strict proof of the application averments. The respondent contended that there was no eye witness to the incident and that it was also not known under what circumstances the incident occurred. The Railway Dr.GRR,J 3 CMA No.920 of 2019 Administration came to know about the incident when Sri M.Vijay Kumar, Trackman on 02.11.2016 prior to 10:30 hours, first found an unknown male dead body aged about 35 years lying on the middle of UP track between Bellampally-Rechini road railway stations at KM No.236/25-23 and informed the same to on duty Deputy Station Superintendent Bellampally and based on the said information, FIR was lodged. Mere finding of a dead body on the Railway Track would not confer any right to the applicants to claim compensation from the respondent - railways. The Railways was not liable to pay compensation. The message of Deputy Station Superintendent Bellampally would not reveal the name of the deceased and would not reveal under what circumstances the incident had occurred. The Panchayathdars of the Inquest Report are not eye-witnesses to the incident. Therefore, their opinion that the deceased accidentally fallen from the train was based on assumptions and presumptions and their opinion could not be accepted and O.A. was liable to be dismissed. As per the inquest report, the dead body was not handed over to the relatives of the deceased, because of not knowing the identity of the dead body. The funeral rites were performed with the Government expenditure. It would clearly prove that the dead body was not identified by anyone. The Investigation Officer of the DRM Report concluded that Dr.GRR,J 4 CMA No.920 of 2019 there was no eye witness to say that the deceased travelled or fallen from the train. Adding to it, no valid railway journey ticket was found with the deceased to prove his journey by railways. It was not a case of accidental fall from train. As per the DRM report also, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and prayed to dismiss the claim application.
4. Basing on the said pleadings, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed the issues as follows:
1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?
2. Whether the Applicants are dependants of the deceased?
3. Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation as claimed ?
4. To what relief?
5. The applicant No.1, the wife of the deceased was examined as AW.1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the applicants. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondent - railways. The Divisional Railway Manager report was marked as Ex.R1.
6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Railway Claims Tribunal held that none of the pre-requisite conditions Dr.GRR,J 5 CMA No.920 of 2019 for grant of compensation that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and he died in an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act was proved by the applicants. Though the applicants contended that there was a loss of currency of Rs.15,000/-, no complaint was lodged by them at any stage and on considering the said facts, concluded that the deceased could not be termed as a bonafide passenger and that the claim would not fall within the scope of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act. The Railway Claims Tribunal also further observed that the body of the deceased was found between the track, not outside the track which generally would happen when someone fell from a running train, as such, dismissed the O.A holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that he did not suffer any untoward incident.
7. Aggrieved by the said finding given by the Railway Claims Tribunal, the applicants preferred this appeal.
8. Heard Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellants-
applicants and Sri Ananthula Ravinder, learned Standing Counsel for Railways.
Dr.GRR,J 6 CMA No.920 of 2019
9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellants by adducing oral and documentary evidence proved their claim. The respondent railways did not conduct fair enquiry. The joint observation report annexed with Ex.R-1 would clearly reveal that the deceased accidentally fallen down from a train. Thus the respondent railways admitted the fall of the deceased from the train. The railways did not adduce any oral evidence to disprove the claim of appellants. The trial court ought to have seen that the journey ticket of the deceased had been lost. The trial court had erroneously taken the ratio of Kamrunnissa v. Union of India [AIR 2017 SC 1436] decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said Judgment was not at all applicable to the facts of the case. The recently decided case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi was applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal did not answer the issues properly, gave a perverse finding and dismissed the claim petition and relied upon the judgment of this Court in CMA No.244 of 2018 dated 04.10.2023, CMA No.330 of 2019 dated 13.12.2023 and in Shaik Mahboob Basha and others Vs. Union of India1 and of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Union of Indian Vs. Parameswaran Pillai, Died and 1 2016 ACJ 1882 Dr.GRR,J 7 CMA No.920 of 2019 another2 and of the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Kantabai and others Vs. Union of India3 and of the High Court of Calcutta in Kakali Kurmi Vs. Union of India and another4 and of the High Court of Madras in Maleshwari Vs. Union of India 5 and prayed to set aside the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Secunderabad dated 03.09.2019 and to allow the appeal by awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
10. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Railways on the other hand contended that after considering all the aspects, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition, the interference of this court was unwarranted and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. On considering the arguments of both the learned counsel, now the point for consideration in the present appeal is:
1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger, whether he died in an untoward accident and whether the applicants were entitled for any compensation as prayed for?2
2013(1) An.WR 601 3 2023 ACJ 1771 4 2023 ACJ 1959 5 2023 ACJ 1376 Dr.GRR,J 8 CMA No.920 of 2019
12. The applicant No.1, wife of the deceased, was examined as AW.1. The family member certificate filed by the applicants marked as Ex.A6 would prove the relationship between the deceased and the applicants. The Aadhar Card of AW.1 also would disclose that AW.1 was the wife of the deceased and the death certificate of the deceased M.Posham would disclose that the deceased died in Mancherial District between Bellampally-Rechini road railway stations on 02.11.2016. AW.1 in her evidence stated that her deceased husband was a Shepherd and an agriculturist and they were residents of Kazipet village, Dharmaraopet Mandal, Adilabad District. With an intent to purchase goats and sheep at Andhevelli Village where her sister, by name, Lingakka was residing, her husband left the house on 01.11.2016 at about 12:00 noon. Her husband informed her that he would go by a train from Bellampally Railway Station to Sirpur Kagaznagar in Telangana Express. On the next day, when she enquired with her sister Lingakka, she informed that he did not reach Andhevelli Village. Then she started searching and enquiring about her husband. Thereafter, with the advice of neighbours, she went to the railway police, Bellampally and enquired about her husband. The railway police informed her that on 02.11.2016 they found a male dead body between Bellampally-Rechini railway stations beside railway track. The police informed her that a male person died Dr.GRR,J 9 CMA No.920 of 2019 by falling down from a train and basing on the information given by the railways, the police issued FIR No.221 of 2016 dated 02.11.2016 and conducted enquiry. The police further stated that they conducted inquest and postmortem over the dead body and when the body was not identified, they performed funeral rites with the government expenditure. The Railway Police, Bellampally had shown the clothes worn by the deceased and his photos. On seeing the same, she identified the deceased as her husband/M.Posham. The police recorded her statement. She further stated that a purse containing about Rs.15,000/- and ticket were lost. Her husband late M. Posham while travelling as bonafide passenger from Bellampally to Sirpur Kagaznagar in Telangana Express train, accidentally fell down from the train and died. In her cross examination, she admitted that as they were living in a remote area which was far from police station, she could not lodge the complaint. She stated that three days after the incident, she came to know about the incident. Some of the villagers directed her to go to Mancherial Railway Police at Mancherial railway police station. She had given the details of the clothes worn by her husband and through them they identified the person as her husband. No journey ticket was shown to her by the police. She denied the suggestion that her husband had not fallen down from the train and died due to some other reasons.
Dr.GRR,J 10 CMA No.920 of 2019
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Reena Devi 6, held that:
"(17.4). 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. Thus, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the initial burden would lie upon the claimants and the same can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. The applicants by examining AW.1 and by filing her affidavit had discharged the burden. Thus, the burden would shift upon the railways to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the claim for compensation was not maintainable. The respondent - railways had not discharged the said burden by adducing any oral evidence. They had only relied upon Ex.R1/DRM report. The DRM report would not disclose any enquiry 6 2018 ACJ 1441 Dr.GRR,J 11 CMA No.920 of 2019 being conducted immediately after the incident. When the respondent authorities were suspecting or denying the occurrence of any untoward incident, it was the obligation of the respondent railway authorities to conduct an enquiry immediately as mandated in Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another Vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railway 7 held that:
"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 27.02.2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23.04.2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased de-trained from the moving train at 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., F.A.O. 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 7 2019 12 SCC 387 Dr.GRR,J 12 CMA No.920 of 2019 Award and the reasons assigned in support of the same, do not warrant any interference."
"if no enquiry was conducted as mandated by the rules, the claimant shall be entitled to compensation."
16. Even in the present case on hand, the railway authorities failed to conduct enquiry immediately after the incident in pursuance of the railway passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. Though, the Station Superintendent came to know about the incident on 02.11.2016 (as per Ex.A2), the railways commenced the statutory enquiry after filing the claim petition and not completed the enquiry within the statutory period, but completed it only in the month of October, 2017. As per the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 the officer of the force shall complete the investigation within 60 days. The DRM report also encloses the joint observation report which categorically reveals the fact that the deceased fallen down from an unknown train. In column No.3-F of the joint observation report, it was mentioned that the deceased was in possession of a journey ticket but it was not a valid journey ticket. The said journey ticket was not placed before the Tribunal by the respondent - railways to prove that it was not a valid journey ticket.
Dr.GRR,J 13 CMA No.920 of 2019
17. The documents marked by the applicants, copy of the FIR, marked as Ex.A1 would disclose that the RPS, Mancherial registered a case vide Crime No.221 of 2016 on 02.11.2016 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C basing on the report given by the Deputy Station Superintendent, Mancherial stating that he received a message from one M.Vijay Kumar a trackman of Unit No.1 Bellampalli reporting about an unknown male dead body aged about 35 years lying on middle of UP track between Bellampally-Rechini at KM No.236/25-23. The message given by the Deputy Station Manager, Bellampalli to GRP Mancherial dated 02.11.2016 was marked as Ex.A2. Ex.A3 the inquest report would disclose that the inquest was not conducted in the presence of any family members and it was recorded that the inquest was conducted on an unknown male dead body. The RPF Head constable - 488 by name MVD Prasad acted as one of the panch witnesses. Ex.A4 is the PME report and Ex.A5 is the final report of RPS Mancherial, wherein after conducting the investigation, the RPS Mancherial also concluded that the deceased by travelling in an unknown train accidentally fallen down from the train UP line in between Bellampally-Rechini Road at KM No.236/25-23 and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. It was also mentioned by them that no foul play was suspected and it was a clear case of accidental death by falling down from an unknown train.
Dr.GRR,J 14 CMA No.920 of 2019
18. The Column No.VII of the inquest panchanama describes that:
"It appears that the deceased was fallen down from some unknown train going in the UP line and on 2-11-2016 morning before 10.30 hrs the dead body of deceased is lying between BPA- RECH railway stations between KM.No.236/26- 25. It appears that the accident was caused at KM.No.236/25, the brain was broken into pieces and appearing beside UP line and gravel stones. There are grievous injuries on both legs on the deceased. Head was crushed. The left hand was cut off upto elbow and lying beside UP line track. The dead body was dragged from the place of incident to upto 48 sleepers. The deceased front side fingers and front side leg was lying in between UP line track. The head is towards northern side and legs towards southern side. INJURIES:- There is a grievous injury to the head and it was crushed. The left hand was cut off at the elbow and its fingers were cut off and the muscles are appearing outside. There are grievous injuries on both legs and there was swelling. There is grievous injury on left hand and there was swelling. The three small fingers of left leg were crushed and muscle is appearing outside. CLOTHES:- the deceased weared blue colour Jeans pant, white cotton full shirt, snuff colour cut drawer, five colours waist thread. ARTICLES: there are no any ornaments or costly articles. But however it was mentioned that a railway journey ticket was found with the deceased and that there were no documents found with the deceased to identify him.
19. In Column No. IX with regard to the death, it was mentioned that:
"It appears that on 2-11-2016 before 10.30 hrs the deceased while travelling in some unknown train, accidentally fallen down between BPA-RECH railway stations and between Dr.GRR,J 15 CMA No.920 of 2019 KM.No.236/26-25 and because of receiving grievous injuries and heavy bleeding he died on the spot."
20. In Column No.XV the panchas opined that:
"Basing on the statements given by witnesses, existence of dead body, the panchas hereby opined that on 2-11-2016 morning before 10.30 hrs the deceased while travelling in some unknown train, accidentally fallen down from the train between BPA-RECH railway stations and because of receiving grievous injuries he died on the spot."
21. Thus as per the inquest report, the panchas opined that the deceased while travelling in some unknown train, accidentally fallen down between Bellampally - Rechini railway stations sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The inquest report also would disclose that the dead body of the deceased was dragged from the place of incident up to 48 sleepers. It would also reveal that a railway journey ticket was found with the deceased. The said journey ticket was not placed before the Tribunal and not marked as an exhibit. These facts were ignored by DRM in his report, and by the Tribunal. The evidence of the RPF Head Constable, who acted as panch witness at the time of inquest, was not taken into consideration by the DRM. He was not examined as a witness by the respondent-Railways before the Tribunal. The joint observation report categorically reveals that the deceased had Dr.GRR,J 16 CMA No.920 of 2019 fallen down from an unknown train. As the body of the deceased was dragged to a certain distance there might be a chance that the journey ticket could have been lost. Even if it was contended that the journey ticket found with the deceased was not a valid journey ticket, it would disclose that the deceased used to purchase the journey ticket whenever he travelled in a train. The loss of journey ticket is not a ground to deny the compensation.
22. The Division Bench of the A.P High Court in Union of India Vs. B.Koddekar 8 held that:
"The burden of proving that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger lies on railways."
23. A single bench of this Court in Shaik Mahboob Basha and others Vs. Union of India (1 supra) held that the presumption that every passenger holds a journey ticket unless the contrary is proved, is applicable. It was further held that:
"8.6.As rightly contended it is undisputed that a person will not be permitted even onto the platform without a platform ticket and that a person will not be permitted to travel in a train without a valid ticket with him and that a duty is enjoined upon the officers of the Railways to regulate the entry of passengers to the platform or into the railway station and into the compartments of trains and 8 (2003) ACJ 1286 Dr.GRR,J 17 CMA No.920 of 2019 that the Railways have sufficient mechanism and manpower to regulate the same. Therefore, it can be presumed that every person entering onto the plat- form holds a valid platform ticket until the contrary is proved.
Similarly it can also be presumed that every person travelling in a train possesses a valid ticket. In support of the view that such a presumption can be drawn, the learned Counsel for the applicants had placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Union Of India... v. P.K Parameswaran Pillai...., 2012 Law Suit (Ker.) 1545. The facts of the reported case show that a mother claimed compensation on account of her son's death in an untoward incident namely a railway accident and that at that time she was not accompanying her son and that her testimony was to the effect that he was travelling in connection with his business; and that therefore, the Court took the view that in the common course of human conduct she would never have had any reason to presume or believe that he would travel without a valid ticket. Going by the facts of the case, it was further presumed that the deceased would have travelled with a ticket and not without a ticket. In the said decision, the High Court of Kerala referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India, 2009 ACJ 2444; the decision of the Kerala High Court in Joji C. John (Claimant) v. Union Of India, 2003 ACJ 52 and that of this Court in Union of India v. B. Koddekar, 2003 ACJ 1286, wherein it was categorically laid down that among other things the fact that the passenger had purchased a ticket and is a bona fide passenger is always to be presumed unless it is shown to be otherwise. As per the ratio in the decisions, such Dr.GRR,J 18 CMA No.920 of 2019 presumptions al- ways swing in favour of the injured; and, if unfortunately the injured dies, such presumptions shall aid those entitled to compensation in that regard. There is no need to multiply decisions on this settled legal position. Having regard to the facts and the legal position obtaining it can safely be presumed and accepted that the deceased held a ticket and that the ticket was lost at the time of the incident. Viewed thus, this Court holds that the deceased is a bona fide passenger and that the defence based on assumptions that he was not holding a ticket can- not be countenanced. The point is accordingly answered."
24. The High Court of Kerala in Union of Indian Vs. Parameswaran Pillai Died and another (2 supra) held that:
"....fact that a passenger had purchased a ticket and is a "bona fide" passenger is always to be presumed unless it is shown to be otherwise. Such presumption would always swing in favour of the injured. If, unfortunately, the injured dies, such presumption shall aid those entitled to compensation in that regard."
25. Basing on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi Vs. Union of India [2009 (4) KLT 370 (SC)]; the Kerala High Court came to the above conclusion.
26. The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Kantabai and others Vs. Union of India (3 supra) held that:
"....Initial burden to prove that deceased was a bona fide passenger has been discharged by claimants by filing Dr.GRR,J 19 CMA No.920 of 2019 affidavit stating the relevant facts but no contra evidence has been led by Railways. There is a possibility of ticket getting misplaced in the accident of such nature where deceased was cut into two halves-Evidence of Stationmaster, Loco Pilot and Guard of the train that no jerk or chain pulling occurred by which any passenger could come under the train is not conclusive evidence as it is common that even without jerk or chain pulling passengers fall down from running train. F.I.R., accidental death report, post-mortem report and inquest panchnama suggest that deceased died in a rail accident on railway premises. No evidence that case falls under any exception in proviso to section 124-A. As such, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident and Railways is liable.
27. The Calcutta High Court in Kakali Kurmi Vs. Union of India and another (4 supra) held that:
"Absence of ticket will not negative the claim that the deceased was a bonafide passenger unless burden to prove contrary is discharged by railways."
28. The High Court of Madras in Maleshwari Vs. Union of India (5 supra) held that:
"Once an untoward incident was established then onus shifts on railways to prove that deceased was not a bonfide passenger. Railways adduced no evidence to discharge the burden and non production of journey ticket cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim application.
Dr.GRR,J 20 CMA No.920 of 2019
29. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the journey ticket was not found with the deceased. The above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of the various High Courts would disclose that the absence of a ticket would not negative the claim that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, unless the burden to prove the contrary was discharged by the railways. As the railways failed to discharge the said burden by adducing any oral or documentary evidence that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application filed by the appellants - claimants. Hence, it is considered fit to set aside the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Secunderabad in O.A. II (u) No.109 of 2017 dated 03.09.2019.
30. As the alleged incident or accident took place after the date of the amendment, the appellants - applicants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum on the compensation amount as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamukayi Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023(Arising out of SLP (c) No.17062 of 2022 decided on 16.05.2023.
Dr.GRR,J 21 CMA No.920 of 2019
31. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad Bench in O.A II (u) No.109 of 2017 dated 03.09.2019 is set aside awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the applicants. Out of the total compensation, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is apportioned to the share of applicant No.1 and Rs.2,00,000/- each to the shares of the applicant Nos.2 and 3. 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. On such, deposit the appellant Nos.1 to 3 - applicant Nos.1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date:29.11.2024 Dsv