Telangana High Court
Sanku Varalakshmi 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.423 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant - applicant aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.01.2019 in O.A II (u) No.273 of 2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Secunderabad (for short 'Tribunal').
2. The appellant - applicant filed the claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest for the death of her son in an untoward train accident under Section 124 - A of the Railway Act, 1989. The applicant stated that her deceased son S.Rambabu was resident of Koduru village, Rowthulapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. His father died 15 years ago. The deceased Rambabu was working as labourer in a private bakery at Samarlakota. The applicant was residing at Koduru village along with her mother. The applicant got two sisters, by name, Venkata Lakshmi and Suri. Venkata Lakshmi was residing at Koduru with her family and Suri was residing at Tata Nagar with her family. In the month of June, 2014 the applicant went to the house of her sister Suri at Tata Nagar. 20 to 25 days prior to the untoward train accident, the deceased Rambabu left his job at 2 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 Samarlakota and went to Koduru village. At that time his mother was at Tata Nagar. Therefore, the deceased resided in the house of Venkata Lakshmi at Koduru and after few days he decided to go to Tata Nagar to see his mother as well as his aunt Suri. Accordingly, on 18-6-2014 the deceased decided to go to Tata Nagar from Annavaram by Tata Nagar Express train. On that day his uncle's son, by name, Yesubabu came to Koduru village on his motor cycle. The deceased Rambabu went to Annavaram Railway Station along with him and purchased a journey ticket for his travel from Annavaram to Tata Nagar and boarded Tata Nagar Express train in the general compartment. Yesubabu was with the deceased chitchatting with him till the train arrived the station and left the station. The train was jam packed and the deceased started journey as standing passenger. Due to heavy rush and internal pushing of passengers as well as jerks of the train, the deceased accidentally fallen down from the running train between Hamsavaram and Tuni Railway stations sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The key-man found the dead body on 18-6- 2014 at about 16.30 hrs., and informed the same to the Station Superintendent, Tuni Railway Station, who inturn informed the same to the G.R.P. as well as R.P.F. Tuni. The G.R.P. Vijayawada issued F.I.R.No.53 of 2014, dated 18-6-2014 and conducted an enquiry. By observing the SIM 3 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 card and a small diary with the deceased, the police traced the relatives of the deceased and informed them about the said incident. On 19-6-2014, the police conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatdars and after completion of postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. The applicant returned to Koduru village from Tatanagar on 19-6-2014 on the information given by her relatives and seen the dead body of her son. The police took the statement of the applicant and other relatives of the deceased. It was further stated that the deceased S. Rambabu was un-married, he lost his journey ticket as well as the journey bag. The applicant claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 15 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.
3. The respondent - railways filed written statement contending that the claim would not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) or Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989. The respondent contended that an enquiry was conducted and in the DRM report, the key-man stated that on 18.06.2014 during his duty at about 16:30 hours, he noticed a male dead body lying between the track at KM.No. 679/22-32 and informed the same to the Station Master, Tuni. On the information given by the Station Master, the GRP and RPF attended the place of occurrence. GRP conducted inquest.
4 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 During the inquest, no ticket was found with the deceased. The Guard of Train No. 13352 Bokaro Express from Rajahmundry to Visakhapatnam Railway stations was also examined and he stated that on 18.06.2014, the train arrived Annavaram Railway Station at 12.50 hrs., and left at 12.52 hrs., after its scheduled halt. The train reached Visakhapatnam Railway Station at 15.40 hrs., without any abnormality. He did not notice any untoward incident between Rajahmundry and Visakhapatnam Railway stations and nobody reported him about the said incident and no ACP was occurred. The train passed the above station in day light hours and during its run between Rajahmundry and Visakhapatnam Railway Stations there were no jerks and jolts in the train.
3.1. The respondents further contended that the DRM enquiry report concluded that there was no eye witness who had seen the deceased accidentally fallen down from the said train on 18.06.2014. As such, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. There was no fault/lapse on the part of the Railway Administration in the alleged mishap. The alleged incident, if any, was caused by the conduct, negligence and the criminal act of the deceased and such act would dis-entitle the applicant from claiming any compensation for such self inflicted injuries due to his own criminal act. It was not a case of untoward incident and it was a case of suspicious 5 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 death and as such, the application was not maintainable in law and prayed to dismiss the application.
4. Basing on the said pleadings, the 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 Applicant is dependant of the deceased?
3. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation as claimed?
4. To what relief?
5. The applicant was examined as AW.1 and L.Yesubabu, who was alleged to be with the deceased till he boarded the train, was examined as AW.2 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the applicant. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondent No.1-Railways. However, the DRM report was marked as Ex.R1 and the statement of AW.2, which was part of the DRM report, was marked as Ex.R2.
6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, dismissed the O.A holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and in the absence of any 6 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 witness to his fall, it could not be termed as untoward incident.
As such, issue No.1 was not proved and once issue No.1 was answered in negative, issue Nos.2 and 3 would only become academic in nature.
7. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the O.A, the applicant preferred this appeal.
8. Heard Sri S.Chandra Sekar, learned counsel for the appellant- applicant and Sri Ananthula Ravinder, learned Standing Counsel for Railways.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Railway Claims Tribunal failed to see that on 18.06.2014, the deceased S.Rambabu while travelling from Annavaram to Tatanagar in Tatanagar express accidentally fallen down from the running train in the middle of the journey, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It was an untoward train accident. As such, the appellant was entitled for compensation. The Railway Claims Tribunal failed to see that the appellant adduced oral evidence of AWs.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A7 to prove her claim. The Railway Claims Tribunal failed to see that AW.2 witnessed when the deceased purchased the journey ticket and boarded the train to travel. No fair enquiry was conducted by the Divisional Railway Manager. Along 7 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 with Ex.R1, the joint observation report was annexed. The statement of AW.2 in Ex.R1, was marked as Ex.R2. AW.2 categorically stated that he sent off the deceased and witnessed the purchase of journey ticket by the deceased. The Railway Claims Tribunal failed to see that the railways did not adduce any oral evidence to disprove the claim of appellant. The Railway Claims Tribunal failed to see that the journey bag and ticket were lost during the incident and failed to consider the settled proposition of law that even in the case of loss of journey ticket in an untoward incident, the claimants were entitled for compensation and relied upon the judgments of this court in CMA No.244 of 2018 and CMA No.330 of 2019 and in Shaik Mahboob Basha and others Vs. Union of India 1 and of the High Court of Delhi in Moola Ram Vs Union of India 2 and of the High Court of Orissa in Mochi Bisoyi Vs. Union of India 3 and of the High Court of Patna in Mostt.Mira Devi W/o.Mukti Narayan Pandey Vs. Union of India, represented through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur 4.
10. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Railways on the other hand contended that after considering all the aspects, the Tribunal 1 2016 ACJ 1882 2 2014 ACJ 1975 3 ACJ 2013 (0) 2026 4 ACJ 2013 (0) 1553 8 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 rightly dismissed the claim petition. No interference of this Court was warranted. No ticket was found with the deceased. As such, he was not a bonafide passenger. There were also contradictions in the statement of AW.2, the latter admitted that he had not seen the deceased purchasing the ticket. There were no merits in the appeal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. Now the point for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger, whether he died in an untoward incident and whether the appellant- applicant is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
12. AW.1 was the mother of the deceased. She was in Tatanagar at the time of incident and was unaware of the plans of the deceased to come to Tatanagar or about his death. Only on the intimation given by her relatives that her son was suffering with some health problem and asked her to come to Kodur village immediately, she returned to Tuni and after going to Kodur village only, she came to know about the death of her son. She stated that her relatives narrated about the incident. On the next day, police recorded her statement. As such, her evidence was hearsay. Another relative of the deceased was examined as AW.2.
9 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019
13. AW.2 stated that the applicant was the sister of his father. He was a resident of Chebrolu. On 17.06.2014, he went to Kodur village to see his paternal grandmother who stayed at Kodur village. On 18.06.2024, he started return journey to Chebrolu. On that day, the deceased Sanku Rambabu @ Nani was at Koduru village. The deceased was working at Samarlakota and came to see his mother. At that time, Sanku Varalaxmi, the mother of Rambabu was in Tatanagar at her sister's house. Therefore, Sanku Rambabu decided to go to Tatanagar. S.Rambabu requested him to send him off up to Annavaram Railway Station. Accordingly, on 18.06.2014, afternoon, he along with S.Rambabu went to Annavaram Railway Station. He parked his motorcycle and S.Rambabu went inside the Railway Station to purchase the journey ticket for travelling from Annavaram to Tatanagar in Tatanagar Express Train (Bokaro Train). Thereafter, he was with the deceased till he boarded the train and thereafter, left to his village. The deceased shown him journey ticket and he kept the journey ticket in his hand bag. On the next day, he came to know that S.Rambabu died by falling down from the train while travelling in the said train from Annavaram to Tatanagar. He went to Kodur village and attended the funeral rites. Thereafter, the railway protection force police took his 10 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 statement. In his cross - examination he admitted that he stated to the RPF personnel that he did not see the deceased purchasing the ticket.
14. Exs.A1 to A10 were also marked on behalf of the applicant. Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR No.53 of 2014 registered by Police Tuni of GRP, Vijayawada. The said FIR was issued basing on the death message given by the Station Master, Tuni Railway Station, wherein, he stated that the key-man, by name, Raju of Unit No.1 reported that while he was doing his duty at about 16:30 hours, found a male dead body between Hamsavaram and Tuni Railway Station down line at KM No.679/22-32. The body was found cut into pieces. Ex.A2 was the message given by the Deputy Station Manager, GRP/Tuni. Ex.A3 was the inquest report dated 19.06.2014 conducted by Tuni Railway Police. The inquest was conducted in the presence of the relatives. As such, the dead body was identified by the time of conducting inquest. The apparent cause of death was mentioned in Column No.IX of the inquest as "It appears that the deceased on 18-6-2014 afternoon 12.00 hrs., left his native place Koduru, Rowthulapudi panchayat, District East Godavari for going to Tatanagar to see his mother from either Annavaram or Pithapuram railway stations and boarded some unknown train and while travelling in the said train due to heavy rush and jerks of the train, he accidentally fallen down between Hamsavaram and 11 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 Tuni railway station at KM.No.679/22-32 beside DN line and he was dragged by the said train and received the injuries particularly mentioned in Col.No.VII and died on the spot."
15. In Column No.VII, the injuries were mentioned as:
(i) the head was separated from trunk, (ii) the right leg was totally broken (iii) left leg was broken, (iv) the left hand was cut off upto shoulder and flesh is appearing, (v) the right hand was cut off upto waist, (vi) the skin came out from other parts of organs and flesh is appearing, (vii) the body was cut into several pieces, (viii) there is grievous injury on elbow of the left hand.
16. It was mentioned that the clothes were torn and a black purse with Uninor SIM card and small account book, some papers relating to cooking items, a cooking order copy dated 01.06.2014 written by Sri Krishna meals was found in the torn pant pocket of the deceased. On the left hand of the deceased there was a silver ring.
17. In Column No.XV, the Panchas opined that basing on the first information report, the statements of witnesses, place of incident, and existence of dead body, the statements given by blood relatives, it appeared that the deceased Shanku Rambabu @ Nani was resident of Koduru village, 12 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 Karupaka panchayat, Rowthulapudi Mandal and his father died about 16 years back and since then he was residing with his mother Varalakshmi and was doing bakery items at a bakery shop. Accordingly about 20 days back, he left the work at bakery house of Samarlakota and went to his native place Koduru. At Koduru he came to know that 10 days back his mother went to Tatanagar to see her sister Suri. Since then the deceased was residing in the house of Varalakshmi, another elder sister of his mother. Since two days the deceased was informing to Malireddy Shivakrishna, the son of his elder mother that he want to go to Tatanagar to see his mother. On 18-6-2014 afternoon at 12.00 hrs., after taking meals in the house of his elder mother, the deceased informed Shivakrishna that he was going to Tatanagar to see his mother and he boarded some unknown train either in Pitapuram or Annavaram for going to Tatanagar and while travelling in the said train, due to heavy rush and due to jerks of the train he accidentally fallen down from the said train at KM.No.679/22 DN between Hamsavaram and Tuni railway stations and he was dragged by the said train upto KM.No.679/32 and received injuries particularly mentioned in Col.No.VII and his head, legs, hands and entire body was cut off and as such he died on the spot.
13 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019
18. Thus, as per the information gathered from the relatives of the deceased immediately after the accident and on considering the place of the incident the existence of the dead body, the panchas opined that the deceased while travelling in an unknown train due to heavy rush and jerks of the train accidentally fallen down from the said train at KM No.679/22 DN between Hamsavaram and Tuni railway stations and was dragged by the said train upto KM No.679/32 and sustained the injuries mentioned in column No.VII and died on the spot.
19. Ex.A4 is the copy of the postmortem report and as per the PME, the cause of death was recorded as body was crushed and separated into multiple pieces.
20. AW.2 was not present at the time of inquest on 19.06.2014, but came to Kodur on 20.06.2014 after coming to know about the death of the deceased. In his statement recorded by the RPF personnel on 08.01.2016, he stated that on 18.06.2014 at about 10:45 hours while he was going to his house by motorcycle, the deceased met him and informed that he was going to Tatanagar to see his mother and requested him to drop at Annavaram Railway Station for onward journey to Tatanagar and on his request he gave lift to the deceased to Annavaram railway station. The deceased went 14 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 to the platform of Annavaram railway station for purchasing the railway journey ticket and at about 12:00 hours boarded into the Bokaro Express. He stated that he did not perceive whether the deceased purchased the railway journey ticket or in which coach he boarded into Bokaro Express and stated that after departure of the train he went to his house and on the next day his relatives informed him about the deceased fallen from the train and died.
21. Thus, though he stated to the RPF police that he had not witnessed the deceased purchasing the journey ticket, but his evidence that he dropped the deceased at Annavaram railway station and he had seen the deceased boarding Bokaro Express was not shattered in his cross - examination. He also stated about the deceased showing him the journey ticket and kept it in his hand bag.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Patna in Mostt.Mira Devi W/o.Mukti Narayan Pandey Vs. Union of India represented through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur's case (4 supra) wherein it was held that:
"Minor discrepancy not affecting the very substance of the matter could not be given undue importance in the face of the evidence on record establishing that the deceased who was travelling in the train fell down from the train and died 15 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 on the spot. Inquest report was prepared, post mortem was held, First information report was lodged and police submitted its report supporting the fact of the incident in which the deceased had died , could not be ignored. There approach should be liberal in appreciating the evidences in such proceedings, moreover, in the absence of any counter evidence negating the claims. The claim application cannot be expected to be equated with the plaint in the civil suit and also the evidence cannot be expected to stand the scrutiny at very high standard in face of sufficient material on record in support of the claim."
23. He also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Moola Ram Vs Union of India (2 supra) on the aspect that minor discrepancies in the testimony of eye witness could not be given due importance by adopting a hyper technical approach. Some contradictions, not major are not sufficient to deny statutory compensation "more so when as per Sections 123 (c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 the liability of Railways is a strict liability."
24. The Railway Claims Tribunal had taken a hyper technical approach in considering the evidence of AW.2 wherein he stated that he did not see the deceased purchasing the ticket as he stated that while he was parking his motorcycle, Sanku Rambabu went inside the railway station and purchased the journey ticket for travelling from Annavaram to Tatanagar in 16 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 Tata Express Train and disregarded his further evidence that he was with the deceased till he boarded the train and that the deceased shown him the journey ticket and kept it in his hand bag.
25. As per the application made by AW.1, the handbag of the deceased was also lost. It was evident from the inquest report that the body was dragged from KM No.679/22 upto KM No.679/32. As the handbag was reported to be lost, there is every chance that the journey ticket, which was kept in the handbag, not found with the body.
26. The Railway Claims Tribunal had placed reliance upon the DRM report and the statement of the Guard of train No.13352 Bokaro Express, who stated that he did not notice any untoward incident between Rajamundry and Visakhapatnam and nobody reported him about the said incident. No ACP was occurred and that there were no jerks and jolts in the train between Rajamundry and Visakhapatnam. The respondents had not examined the said Guard who gave the statement during the enquiry before the Tribunal nor examined the DRM (Divisional Railway Manager) who gave the report.
27. The contents of Ex.R1 report were not proved by examining any witness and author of Ex.R1. The DRM ought to have entered into the 17 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 witness box to prove the contents of Ex.R1. At least the RPF Investigating Officer, who conducted enquiry on behalf of Railways, ought to have been examined by the Railways to prove the contents of Ex.R1. In the absence of any witness to prove the contents of Ex.R1, the same could not be held as proved.
28. As per the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules-2003, in case of suspected deaths, it is the obligation of the respondent - railway authorities to conduct an enquiry as mandated in Rule VII of the Railways Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules-2003. The railways shall complete the investigation within 60 days and submit the report to the authority. The statutory enquiry should be completed within 60 days from the date of knowledge of the incident.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another Vs General Manager, South-East Central Railway 5, held that:
"3.Though Rule 27 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 5 2019 12 SCC 387 18 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 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 Award and the reasons assigned in support of the same, do not warrant any interference."
29. In the present case also the Station Superintendent came to know about the incident on 18.06.2014, but the statutory investigation report was submitted on 25.02.2016. Thus, the railways commenced the enquiry after filing the claim petition as per the letter of railways dated 30.09.2015 and not completed the enquiry within the statutory period.
30. In Reena Devi Vs. Union of India 6, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"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 6 (2019) 3 SCC 572 19 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 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."
31. Thus, the initial burden lies upon the applicant and the same can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts and then burden would be shifted to the railways. The applicant filed her affidavit as well as examined AW.2 in support of her contention that the deceased boarded into Bokaro Express on 18.06.2014 at 12:00 hours.
32. The Railways failed to rebut the said evidence by examining any of the witness, the express Guard of train No.13352 Alleppey-Tatanagar, who gave his statement before the Inspector of RPF or the Inspector of RPF, who conducted the enquiry or the DRM, who gave the report marked under Ex.R1.
33. Several High Courts, including this High Court, in various judgments held that even in case of loss of journey ticket, the railways is liable to pay the compensation. This Court in Shaik Mahboob Basha and others Vs. Union of India (1-supra) held that:
20 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 "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 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. 21 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 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 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."
34. The High Court of Madras in Maleshwari Vs. Union of India 7 held that:
"Once untoward incident is established, the onus is shifted on to the railways to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger."
35. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Union of India Vs. Parameswaran Pillai 8 held that:
"PW.1 deposed that he had purchased a ticket from Kalikat Railway station that was not recovered from his body. The Railways have security personnel would and could arrest unauthorized travel."7
2023 ACJ 1376 8 2013 ACJ 635 22 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019
36. The High Court of Bombay in Nagpur Bench in Kantabai and others Vs. Union of India 9 held that:
"The initial burden to prove that the deceased was a bonafied passenger has been discharged by filing affidavit by claimants stating the relevant facts, but no contra evidence has been lead by the railways. Hence, appeal was allowed."
37. The High Court of Calcutta in Kakali Kurmi Vs. Union of India and another 10 held that:
"absence of ticket will not negative the claim that the deceased was a bonafied passenger unless burden to prove contrary discharged by railways."
38. The appellant by adducing oral and documentary evidence, proved that the deceased while travelling as a bonafide passenger in Tatanasgar Express Train (Bakaro Train) accidentally fallen down from the train and died and discharged the initial burden.
39. The inquest report marked under Ex.A3 would disclose that the deceased accidentally fallen down from a train at KM 679/22 DN between Hamsavaram and Tuni Railway Stations and was dragged by the said train upto KM No.679/32.
9 2023 ACJ 1771 10 2023 ACJ 1959 23 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019
40. The joint observation report enclosed with DRM report would clearly reveal that the deceased accidentally fallen down from the train.
41. The Railway Claim Tribunal without considering all these aspects came to a wrong conclusion by dismissing the claim petition of the applicant. As such, this Court finds it fit to set aside the judgment passed by the Tribunal and holds that the applicant is entitled for compensation.
42. Coming to the quantum of compensation in case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment i.e., on 24.06.2014, the prevailing basic figure in respect of death case was Rs.4,00,000/-, which had been subsequently, enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016.
43. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs.Radha Yadav 11 held that:
"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 11 (2004) 2 SCC 1 24 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 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 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."
44. 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 India in Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023(Arising out of SLP (c) No.17062 of 2022 decided on 16.05.2023. From the date of accident i.e., 18.06.2014 to the date of this order, the applicants are entitled 25 Dr.GRR,J CMA No.423 of 2019 for interest. As the final figure after calculating the rate of interest would be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, the claimant is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-.
45. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Secunderabad in O.A. II (u) No.273 of 2015 dated 10.01.2019 is set aside, awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the applicant. 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 applicant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded to her. 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