Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P Rama Rao vs Union Of India on 18 October, 2023
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.74 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2022 passed in OA/II/u/126 of 2016 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravti Bench, Guntur (for short "the Tribunal").
2. Heard Smt. N. S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri G. Arun Shouri, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The claim of appellants/applicants before the Tribunal is that the application has been filed by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A and 125 of Indian Railways Act 1989 against the respondent Railway administration claiming compensation f Rs.10,00,000/- with interest from the date of accident and costs for the death of Shri P.Leela Mohan (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased")in an alleged untoward incident that occurred on 22.02.2016. The claim of the appellants is that the deceased was a student and was taking long term coaching 2 for EAMCET at Vijayawada prior to his accident. While he was intend to go to his native place to attend marriage of his relative, went to Eluru and from there he went to Gollaprolu and thereafter to Elamanchili, and finally from Elamanchili he went to Visakhapatnam. The deceased informed his father that he was coming to Srikakulam by Falaknuma Express on 22.02.2016. Accordingly he went to Visakhapatanam Railway Station in the early hours of 22.02.2016 purchased a 2nd class Superfast Train Journey Ticket from Visakhapatnam to Srikaluam Road Railway station and boarded Train No.12704 Secunderabad-Howrah, Falaknuma Express in a 2nd class General compartment and left. While travelling as there was heavy rush of passengers in the compartment, suddenly, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train at KM No.876/0-2 between Visakhapatnam and Gopalapatnam Railway stations due to speed, jolts and sudden jerks of the said train and as a result he sustained head injury and other multiple injuries and died on the spot.
4. The respondent filed its written statement and denied all the allegations made in the claim application and 3 stated that the claimants are put to strict proof of averments made in the claim application. The respondent denied that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train no.12704 Falaknuma Express of 22.02.2016 and the case falls under Section 124-A and 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?
ii) Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) of the deceased?
iii) Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled for any relief and interest as prayed for in the application?
iv) To what relief?
6. During course of the trial, the appellant
No.1/applicant No.1 was examined as AW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, Ex.R1-the report by DRM was marked and C.D file produced by the Govt. Railway Police was marked as Ex.C1.
7. Basing on the facts and circumstances, attending circumstances and preponderance of evidence on record, the 4 Tribunal has dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.
8. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of Tribunal is contrary to law and contrary to facts of the case and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. She further submits that the Tribunal has shown narrow minded approach, while adjudicating the case. She further submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the death of the deceased was not due to an untoward incident. The Tribunal adopted a very narrow approach in this matter. The act is beneficial piece of legislation. She further submits that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on erroneous appreciation of the evidence and material on record. Learned counsel for the appellants has furnished a copy of order of this Court passed in CMA No.19 of 2023, dated 28.08.2023 and requests this Court in similar circumstances, the same order may be passed in this case also. She further submits that in absence of any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anything contained in any 5 other law, the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the report of Divisional Railway Manager that there is no eye witness or evidence to prove that the deceased had actually travelled in the train or fell from the train and the guard of the train stated that nobody informed him regarding falling of any passenger from his train during his duty from Visakhapatnam to Khurda Road Junction Railway station. He further submits that the appellant No.1, who is father of the deceased in his examination he deposed that he was an agriculture coolie and he does not remember the date of incident. Police informed him about the incident and his son was taking long term coaching for EAMCET but he did not remember the name of institute in which he was studying. He further submits that there is no train journey ticket was recovered from the dead body of the deceased or from the vicinity of the place of incident. There is no corroborative evidence to support the averment. Therefore, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the said train.
6
10. On perusing the entire material available on record, this Court observed that, the appellants in their claim stated that the deceased was travelling from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam Road Railway station by train No.12704 in general compartment by holding a 2nd class train journey ticket. It is also observed that AW.1 in his chief affidavit stated that he is not an eye witness to the purchase of journey ticket by the deceased. There is thus no eyewitness to the purchase of journey ticket by the deceased.
11. As seen from the Inquest report at para No.VII, it was mentioned that, in the pant pocket of the deceased there was one purse which contained two train journey tickets one is (Train No.91070305) from Vijayawada to Eluru and the other one bearing No.62301807 is from Gollaprolu to Elamanchili. There are other articles, 5 passport size photos, Identity Card of Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions and a fees receipt for cash of Rs.2000/-, however, no train journey ticket from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam Road Railway station found with the deceased. It was also observed that the clothes are intact and as per 7 Para XX of the Inquest report, the deceased body has not been dragged. The photographs available in the CD file show that the clothes worn by the deceased were not torn and are fully intact. The deceased wore a T-Shirt and it is observed that the garment had no pockets. Therefore, it is clear that if the deceased had indeed purchased a journey ticket for travel from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam, he would have kept his journey ticket along with the other tickets and items that were found in his purse. When a good number of items along with other tickets are available with the deceased, that only the journey ticket pertaining to travel from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam is found missing does not appear probable.
12. It is an admitted fact that the father of the deceased in his examination, he clearly deposed that the deceased called him over phone and informed at 4.00 a.m. that he was at Visakhpatnam to meet his friends. Police informed him about the incident at 01.00 p.m. and handed over him fees receipt of Rs.2,000/-; 3 photographs and three train journey tickets i.e., one is from Vijayawada to Eluru, second is from Eluru to Elamanchili and the third from 8 Elamanchili to Visakhapatnam. He also denied that his son was a ticketless traveller.
13. As far as the bonafide of the deceased as a passenger is concerned, this is a case where the relevant journey ticket has not been found. In such cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi1, wherein it was held that the mere presence of a dead body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket which such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide 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.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Section 123 (c )(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the accident falling of any passenger from a train carrying passers, reads as under:
1 Civil Appeal No.4945 of 2018 9
Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989
123. Definitions.--In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in section 124;
(b) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:--
(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;
(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;
(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;
(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.
25 [(c) "untoward incident" means--
(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
15. On one hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid journey ticket. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that no railway ticket was found on the body of the deceased. It is indeed a matter of concern that the Government Railway police who are supposed to investigate all such deaths are too happy to close cases of body found near the track as one due to fall from a train. In this case 10 they have not applied their mind as to how anyone who has allegedly fallen from a running train could be found in the state that the deceased was found. The deceased in the present case is not shown to be a bonafide passenger and his death is not on account of an untoward incident. Due to the said reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
16. In a case of Union of India (stated supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, on the burden of proof, which emphasized that any person found dead or injured on railway premises is presumed to be a bona fide passenger unless the railway administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse.
17. In the light of judgment of UOI v. Radha Yadav2, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "because death is proved due to outcome of untoward incident of the deceased being a bona fide passenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded."
18. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the material available on record, it is observed that the respondent is failed to establish that whether the 2 (2019) 3 SCC 410 11 deceased is a bona fide passenger or not, as the burden lies on the respondent authorities and hence the railway administration is liable to pay the adequate compensation. Therefore, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the considered opinion that while setting aside the impugned judgment, inclined to allow the present appeal.
19. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 30.11.2022 passed in OA/II/u/126 of 2016 by the Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The appellants were awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing the petition until its realization. The respondent, Union of India, is directed to pay the compensation amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 18-10-2023
Gvl
12
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.74 of 2023 Date : 18 .10.2023 Gvl 13