Telangana High Court
B.Kasinath And Another vs Union Of India Rep. By Its General ... on 1 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1079 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for short 'Act') aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.09.2013 in OAA No. 307 of 2009 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest for death of one B. Basavaraj (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case of the applicants are that applicants are father and mother of the deceased respectively. While so, on 24.10.2008, the deceased with an intention to go to Khairtabad from Fathenagar on official work accompanied by his friend and neighbor Mr. D. Baswaraj went to Fathenagar Railway station and purchased a journey ticket in the presence of his friend from Fathenagar to Khairtabad and boarded MMTS train. 2
MGP,J CMA_1079_2019 After dropping the deceased at Fathenagar railway station his friend returned back. While travelling in the said train due to heavy rush and speed and jerks of the train, the deceased, who was standing near the door, accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at Fathenagar and sustained injuries. Immediately, the railway officials shifted the deceased to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, through 108 ambulance and while undergoing the treatment, the deceased died on 30.10.2008.
4. The respondent railways filed written statement denying the contents of the claim application and contended that the deceased was not having any journey ticket or any cash. Hence, the deceased is not bona fide passenger and he was only a trespasser. It is also contended that the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report was also concluded that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger and the incident occurred while, he was crossing the railway track at Fatehnagar railway station, negligently without using foot over bridge. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim application.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
3
MGP,J CMA_1079_2019 "1. Whether applicants are dependents of the deceased?
2. Whether the deceased was bona fide passenger of the train in question while travelling from Fathenagar to Khairtabad?
3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train?
4. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as limed by them in the application?
5. To what relief?"
6. The applicants, in order to substantiate their claim, got examined applicant No.1 as A.W.1 and A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were got examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were got marked.
7. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has dismissed the claim application of the applicants. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
8. Heard, the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent and perused the entire record.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants is that they have proved their case by 4 MGP,J CMA_1079_2019 adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon the Exs.A-1 to A-6, but the Tribunal without considering the same erred in dismissing the claim application. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.
10. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent argued that after considering all the aspects the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application and the interference of this Court is unwarranted and prayed to dismiss the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
11. Now the point for consideration is as follows:
"Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed for?"
Point:-
12. This Court perused the documents and evidence placed on record by both the sides. Applicant No.1, who is father of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and he deposed reiterating the contents of the claim application. A.W.1 got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6, in support of his case. Though, he was cross-examined nothing was elicited. In order to substantiate plea set up the applicants, they got examined A.W.2, who is friend and neighbour 5 MGP,J CMA_1079_2019 of the deceased. A.W.2 deposed that he accompanied the deceased to the railway station and both of them had a chitchat at the entrance of the railway station. He also stated that he accompanied the deceased to the ticket counter, while the deceased purchased his ticket. However, he stated that the deceased alone went into the station to board the train and after the deceased went inside, A.W.2 left the station. In the cross-
examination, he clearly admitted that he left the station without seeing the deceased boarding the train.
13. The respondent railways, in support of the case set up by them got examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. R.W.1 is booking clerk and he deposed that on 24.10.2008, while he was on duty at Fathenagar Railway Station, at about 09:15 hours one male person aged about 30 years came and informed him that a male person aged about 16 years was hit and run over by MMTS while crossing the track on platform No.1. The said incident was informed to DY.SS/Hyderabad and Commercial Controller on duty at about 09:50 hours over the phone. Further, R.W.1 made an entry of the said message in the control message book and extract of the said control message was marked as 6 MGP,J CMA_1079_2019 Ex.R-1. Though, he was cross-examined nothing worth was elicited.
14. The respondent got examined Head Constable of Government Railway Police (GRP), Nampally, Hyderabad, as R.W.2. He deposed that he conducted inquest in the present case and also recorded statement of father of the deceased. He further deposed that he was informed by the panchas that the deceased was hit by an unknown train near Fathenagar Railway station on 24.10.2008. He also stated that there was no ticket on the body of the deceased. In the cross-examination, he denied that he was deposing false to help the respondent railways.
15. The respondent railways have relied upon the DRM report under Ex.R-2, which shows that it was concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and while crossing the railway track at Fathenagar Railway Station negligently without using foot over bridge, he was hit by MMTS train and sustained injuries and succumbed to the same.
16. The applicants, in order to prove the case set up by them have to prove that the deceased is a bona fide passenger on the train and that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident. 7
MGP,J CMA_1079_2019 Then, the onus shifts on to the respondent to disprove the case set up by the applicant. In the present case in hand, the applicants have not produced the journey ticket to show that the deceased was traveling in the train as alleged by them. The applicants got examined A.W.2, who deposed that he accompanied the deceased to the railway station and saw the deceased purchasing the journey ticket. This part of evidence of A.W.2 has not been disproved by the respondent by way of any evidence. Hence, it can be clearly deemed that the deceased has purchased the journey ticket to travel in the train. However, the journey ticket was not found with the deceased after his death. Therefore, it can be deemed that the ticket might have been lost at the time of the death.
17. Now, coming to the occurrence of untoward incident, the applicants contended that the deceased fell down from running train and died. In support of the same, they have relied upon Ex.A-1 attested copy of First Information Report, which shows that Crime No.364 of 2008 was registered on receipt of message of accidental fall and investigation was taken up by the police. Ex.A-2 is inquest report, which clearly shows that on 24.10.2008, while the deceased was crossing Fathenagar Railway track, one 8 MGP,J CMA_1079_2019 unidentified train accidentally hit him and caused accident. Ex.A-3 is death report, Ex.A-4 is ID card of the deceased and Ex.A-5 is family members' certificate. All these three documents show cause of death of the deceased, occupation of the deceased and dependency of applicants on the deceased.
18. It is pertinent to state that A.W.1 is not a witness to the incident as such his evidence does not reveal any details with regard to the occurrence of the untoward incident. Though, A.W.2 deposed about purchase of the ticket, he has clearly admitted in his evidence that he has not seen the deceased boarding the train. Hence, the evidence of A.W.2 also does not prove fall of the deceased from running train and occurrence of untoward incident. Ex.A-1 attested copy of FIR discloses that there was accidental fall. Ex.A-2 inquest report shows that the deceased was hit by an unknown train while crossing railway track. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that except Ex.A-1 FIR, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the applicants to prove that the deceased has boarded the train and accidentally fallen down from the running train and died.
19. On the other hand, the respondent railways has relied upon the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.R-2 DRM report, which 9 MGP,J CMA_1079_2019 clearly show that the deceased was trespasser and was crossing railway track at Fathenagar Railway station negligently without using the foot over bridge and he was hit by MMTS train. Due to which he sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries subsequently.
20. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that though, the deceased was holding ticket, the applicants have not discharged the initial burden by adducing cogent and convincing evidence with regard to accidental fall from running train and occurrence of untoward incident. However, the respondent railway has clearly proved their case that the deceased was trespasser with cogent evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants failed to prove occurrence of untoward incident and death of the deceased in the said incident, to shift their onus on to the respondent to disprove the case set up by the applicants. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
21. In result the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 13.09.2013 in OAA No.307 of 2009 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at 10 MGP,J CMA_1079_2019 Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 01.03.2024 GVR