Telangana High Court
Gollapelli Sushila And 2 Others vs The Union Of India on 24 June, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1156 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants, who were the applicants aggrieved by the judgment passed in O.A.II.(U).No.30 of 2018 dated 14.10.2019 by the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short ''the Tribunal''), Secunderabad Bench, in dismissing the claim petition filed by them.
2. The claim petition was filed by the applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 in respect of the death of one Gollapelli Anjanna, aged 39 years in a train accident and untoward incident under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs with interest @ 15 % per annum.
3. The contention of the claimants was that the deceased Gollapelli Anjanna alias Anji was working as a sweeper in Municipal Office, Karimnagar and was a resident of Karimnagar. In the month of October, 2017, the applicant No.1 i.e. the wife of the deceased went to Kundaram Village, Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District to her parents' house. The applicant No.1 was intending to purchase a land at Kundaram Village and asked her husband to visit Kundaram Village. The deceased informed her that on 08.10.2017 night in Bhagyanagar Express 2 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 Train he would come to Kundaram Village. Accordingly on 08.10.2017 in the evening hours, the deceased went to Peddapalli by bus from Karimnagar. At Peddapali he purchased the journey ticket for travelling from Peddapalli to Mancherial and boarded Bhagyanagar Express Train. The friend of the deceased by name Sudhakar went to railway station to drop the deceased on his two wheeler and he witnessed the deceased purchasing the ticket and boarding the Bhagyanagar Train. On the way, the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train between Peddampet and Mancherial railway stations, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. On 09.10.2017 in the morning hours, the railway patrol men noticed the dead body of the deceased and basing on the message given by the Deputy Station Superintendent (for short ''DSS''), Mancherial to the Railway Police (for short ''RPS''), Mancherial, FIR No.275 of 2017 was issued and enquiry was conducted. On observing the identity papers of the deceased, the railway police informed the incident to the relatives of the deceased. The journey bag, the journey ticket as well as some cash were lost. As the deceased died in an untoward train accident, the applicants applied for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
4. The respondent Railways filed counter denying the petition averments. The respondent contended that there were no eye-witnesses to the alleged boarding and travelling of the deceased by Bhagyanagar Train. If the deceased had fallen from train, the co-passengers would have raised hue and cry. But no 3 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 such thing happened and hence the possibility of falling of the deceased from the said train as alleged was not true. The passengers did not report the incident to any railway authorities of the said train or at the station. As such, the deceased did not travel by the train and did not fall from the alleged train. A false claim was made by the claimants. As per the FIR, the dead body was noticed by night duty patrol men and basing on their information, the FIR was lodged. As per column No.7 of the inquest report, a red and white color bag was found and in the said bag there were certificates, marriage photo album, municipal papers and certificates relating to the deceased. There was a purse, in which there was an aadhar card, municipal ID and cash of Rs.90/-. Except the above, no other valuable articles or journey ticket was found with the deceased. The applicants had not given any complaint to the railway police with regard to the alleged accident. The applicants had not filed any journey ticket for the journey of the deceased in Bhagyanagar Train from Peddapalli to Mancherial. As such, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The applicants had not filed any documentary proof to show that the said Sudhakar accompanied the deceased to the railway station. As per the Divisional Railway Manger (for short ''DRM'') report, the duty guard of the alleged train No.17233, Bhagyanagar Express stated that he did not notice any untoward incident and not received any information from the passengers regarding the untoward incident and that the train ran without unusual halts in the said section. The 4 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 Investigating Officer concluded that there was no proof that the deceased travelled and had fallen from the train and he further observed that the position of the dead body, which was between the two rails itself would indicate that either the victim committed suicide or it was a case of trespass and prayed to dismiss the claim application filed by the claimants.
5. Basing on the said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues and conducted enquiry.
6. The applicant No.1, the wife of the deceased was examined as AW.1. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the applicants. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondent. The DRM's report was marked as Ex.R1 on behalf of the respondent.
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Railway Claims Tribunal observed that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as defined under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, which was one of the pre-requisite conditions for grant of compensation. The admission made by AW.1 in her cross-examination that she had not filed any journey ticket of her husband as well as the DRM report would prove that either the victim would have committed suicide or the incident happened as a trespasser. In either events, the applicants were not entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal further observed that the applicants failed to produce the said Sudhakar 5 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 to corroborate the fact of purchasing journey ticket by the deceased and placed reliance upon a 3-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamrunnissa v. Union of India 1 on the aspect that only if the claimants could prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, they were entitled to claim compensation and dismissed the application.
8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal, the applicants preferred this appeal.
9. Heard Sri S.Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ananthula Ravinder, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Railways.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the applicants were the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellants by adducing oral evidence of AW.1 and documentary evidence i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 proved the claim. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the respondent failed to adduce any oral evidence except filing the DRM report marked as Ex.R1. The respondent failed to conduct a fair statutory enquiry and had given a wrong finding in DRM report. The Tribunal ought to have seen that on behalf of the DRM, for preparing Ex.R1, the Railway Protection Force (for short ''RPF'') conducted an enquiry. The RPF Head Constable acted as a joint observer at the time of conducting inquest, wherein 1 AIR 2017 SC 1436 6 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 the panchas categorically opined that the deceased while travelling in a train accidentally fallen down from the train. In the joint observation report, it was categorically stated that the deceased died due to fall from an unknown train up line. The Tribunal ought to have seen that contrary to the joint observation report, the Inspector of RPF concluded that it was not a case of fall from train, but could be either suicide or a case of trespass. The DRM mechanically accepted the said conclusion without any oral evidence adduced by the respondent. The judgment in Kamrunnissa Case (cited supra) was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. The trial court ought to have seen that the dead body was dragged for about 100 sleepers and the journey bag was lost. Therefore, the journey ticket was not found with the deceased. It was settled law that a presumption should be drawn in favor of the claimants in the said regard and relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the AP High Court in Union of India v. B.Koddekar 2, the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Union of India v. Parameswaran Pillai 3 and of the judgment of this Court in Shaik Mahboob Basha and Others v. Union of India 4 and of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi5 and of the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Maleshwari v. Union of India 6 and of the High Court of Bombay in Kantabai & Others v. Union of India, 2 2003 ACJ 1286 (AP) 3 2013 ACJ 635 (Kerala) 4 2016 ACJ 1882 5 2018 ACJ 1441 6 2022 ACJ 1376 7 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 represented through its General Manager7 and of the High Court of Calcutta in Kakali Kurmi v. Union of India and Others 8.
11. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. No document was filed to show that he purchased the journey ticket. No document was filed in proof of employment of the deceased. As per the DRM report and the observations of the Tribunal, the death of the deceased was due to suicide or the incident happened as a trespasser. No eye-witnesses were examined by the claimants / applicants to show that the deceased had boarded the train or accidentally fell down. The applicants stated that one Sudhakar had accompanied the deceased to the station. But the said Sudhakar was also not examined by the applicants. The photographs which were part and parcel of Ex.R1 would disclose that the dead body was found between the rails. If it was an accidental fall, the dead body could not be found on the rails. The Tribunal on considering all these aspects passed a reasonable judgment and no interference was required and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. The applicant No.1 - the wife of the deceased was examined as AW.1. She filed her evidence affidavit stating that her deceased husband was working as a sweeper in the Office of Municipality, Karimnagar. In the month of 7 2023 ACJ 1771 8 2023 ACJ 1959 8 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 October, 2017, she went to her parents' house at Kundaram Village, Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District. She was intending to purchase a land at Kundaram Village and requested her husband to come to Kundaram Village for dealing with the said land purchase. On her request, her husband started journey on 08.10.2017 in the evening hours. He was from time to time informing her over phone about his journey. He reached Peddapalli by bus from Karimnagar and informed her that he would come to Mancherial by Bhagyanagar Train in the night hours on 08.10.2017. He purchased a ticket from Peddapalli to Mancherial and boarded Bhagyanagar Express in the night hours. Her husband's friend one Sudhakar went to see off her husband at Peddapalli railway station. On 08.10.2017 in the night hours, her husband did not come to Kundaram Village. As such, they were worried and started enquiring about him. On 09.10.2017 in the morning hours, they received a phone call from the railway police, who informed her that her husband fell down from the train in between Peddampet - Mancherial Railway Stations and died on the spot. The Police asked her to come to Government Hospital, Godavarikhani. As such, she along with her relatives rushed to the Government Hospital, Godavarikhani and found the dead of her husband and identified the body. The GRP, Mancherial issued FIR No.275 of 2017 dated 09.10.2017 and conducted enquiry. She stated that the journey bag and journey ticket were lost. 9
Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 Her husband sustained several grievous injuries in the said accident. His clothes were torn and the ticket was lost.
13. In her cross-examination, she admitted that no one witnessed the fall of her husband from the train, but denied the other suggestions given to her that he was not a bonafide passenger as he was not in possession of any journey ticket and he had not fallen down from the train and died due to some other reason.
14. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of the FIR filed by AW.1. Ex.A1 would disclose that the police registered the case basing on the message given by the DSS, Mancherial, wherein he stated that he was informed by the night patrol men A.Prakash and G.Sambasiva Rao about the un-known male dead body aged about 35 years found at Kilometer No.266/7-5 between PPZ - MCI Upline. Ex.A2 is the message given by the DSS, Mancherial to GRP Police on 09.10.2017 at 06:30 hours. Ex.A3 is the inquest report. As per the inquest report, the name of one K.Anandam, the RPF Head Constable was mentioned as a joint observer. The inquest was conducted in the presence of the blood relatives of the deceased as well as the complainant and the trackmen, who had initially observed the dead body.
15. As per the inquest, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in between Kilometer No.266/7-5 Upline between Peddampet - Mancherial Railway Stations between up line track. The leg of the deceased was cut off and 10 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 was lying at a distance of 50 meters from the dead body, hand was cut off and was lying at a distance of 70 meters from the dead body. There was a grievous injury to the head and there was no scalp on the head. The body was dragged about 90 sleepers. There were rupture injuries on the body. There were no clothes on the body except a piece of khakee color pant and a piece of half cut banian. It was also specified that at a distance of 100 meters from the deceased, a red and white color bag was found and it was containing certificates, marriage photo album, municipal papers of the deceased and certificates relating to the deceased and there was a purse, in which there was an aadhar card, municipal ID and cash of Rs.90/-, but no journey ticket was found with the deceased.
16. Basing on the place of incident, the existence of the dead body and the statements given by the blood relatives of the deceased, the panchas opined that the deceased was aged 39 years working as PH worker in Municipality, Karimnagar. His father-in-law was residing at Jaipur Mandal of Mancherial District. His wife and daughter were there. On 08.10.2017, the deceased was proceeding to his wife and daughter in some unknown train towards up line; he accidentally fell down between Kilometer No.266/7-5 between Peddampet - Mancherial Railway Stations. His leg was cut off, hand was cut off and sustained grievous head injury and died on the spot. 11
Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019
17. ExA4 was the PME report. As per Ex.A4, the cause of death of the deceased was opined to be due to head injury and severe hemorrhage leading to acute cardio-respiratory failure. Ex.A5 was the charge sheet / case disposal report, wherein also the Sub-Inspector of Police, RPS Mancherial basing on the evidence collected during the course of investigation, observed that it was established that while the deceased was travelling in an un-known train in order to go to Mancherial, in the meantime, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train at Kilometer No.266/7-5 in between Peddampet - Mancherial Railway Stations, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. There was no foul play suspected in the cause of death of the deceased and sought permissions to refer the case as accidental death. Ex.A6 is the family member certificate, which would disclose that the applicants were dependants of the deceased and Ex.A7 was the aadhar card of AW.1.
18. The respondent had not adduced any oral evidence. They only got filed the DRM report as Ex.R1. As per the settled law, the author of the document i.e. the DRM should enter into the witness box to prove the contents of Ex.R1. Atleast, the RPF Investigating Officer, who conducted enquiry on behalf of the Railways ought to have entered into the witness box to prove the contents of Ex.R1. Otherwise, no legal validity can be attached to Ex.R1. As per Rule 7 of the Railway Passenger (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Rules), 2003, when the railway authorities were suspecting or denying the occurrence of an 12 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 untoward incident, there was an obligation upon them to conduct an enquiry within 60 days and submit a report to the competent authority. Though the Station Superintendent came to know about the incident on 09.10.2017 as per Ex.A1, the railways submitted DRM report on 27.06.2018, after filing the claim petition by the claimants and on receipt of a requisition from the RPF through a letter dated 08.05.2018.
19. In A.Sreenivas Rao and Another v. Union of India, Secunderabad9, a Single Bench of this Court by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo & another v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway 10, held that:
"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 9 CMA.No.862 of 2017 dated 22.04.2022 10 (2019) 12 SCC 387 13 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 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."
20. Even in the present case on hand, the railway authorities failed to conduct enquiry immediately after the accident and only after filing of the claim petition by the applicants, the railway authorities prepared the DRM report beyond the 14 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 statutory period of 60 days from the date of knowing the incident. As such, the above decision was applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
21. The Railway Officials also did not consider the contents of the FIR or inquest panchanama or charge-sheet.
22. The respondent had not placed any evidence except relying on Ex.R1 - DRM Report. The DRM report concluded that there was no proof of the deceased travelling on the train and it was stated that either the victim committed suicide or it was a case of trespass. If the deceased was intending to commit suicide, he need not travel from Karimnagar to Peddapalli and need not die on the way between Peddampet and Mancherial Railway Stations. Likewise, there was no reason to consider as to why he would be crossing the railway track at an un-known place at a long distance from his place of residence in the middle of the night.
23. As the inquest report would disclose that the body of the deceased was dragged to a distance of 90 sleepers from kilometer No.266/5 and all the clothes worn by him were torn, there is every chance that the journey ticket which might have been kept in his pocket also might have been lost. Though the bag of the deceased with his certificates, purse, identity cards and other documents and cash of Rs.90/- was found and it was mentioned that no journey ticket was 15 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 found with the deceased, the journey ticket might not have been kept in the bag, but could have been placed in the clothes on his person.
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi (cited supra), 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."
25. In the present case also, the applicants by examining AW.1, wherein she filed her affidavit with all the relevant facts discharged the burden laid upon her and the burden would shift to the railways to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
16
Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019
26. The High Court of Madras in Maleshwari v. Union of India (cited supra), held that:
"9. This Court is of an opinion that once an untoward incident is established and the death occurred due to falling down from the running train and if the journey ticket was not retrieved, the burden of proof must be shifted on the Railways that the deceased passenger was not a bonafide passenger. However, there is every possibility that the journey ticket would have been lost while the deceased fell down from the running train or while taking the deceased to hospital or for post-mortem or somewhere else.
10. Once the untoward incident is established and the death occurred due to falling down from the running train, then the non- availability of journey ticket cannot alone be a ground to reject the claim petition. In such circumstances, the onus lies on the Railways to establish that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger."
27. In Ramsingh Shekawat and another v. Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad 11 of this Court held that:
"When two views are possible from evidence as to cause of death whether it is an untoward 11 2010 (1) ALT 631 (SB) 17 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 incident or not, view favorable to the applicants shall be adopted. The provision for compensation in Railway Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one."
28. The accident was also stated to have occurred in the middle of the night. As such, there might not be a chance for co-passengers to witness the incident and to report about it. The DRM without considering the joint observation report prepared by RPF police as well as the GRP, the inquest and case disposal report marked under Ex.A5, which all would disclose that the deceased accidently fallen down from the train and died, observing that the cause of death might be a suicide or was a case of trespass, is considered as improper. The Investigating Officer of RPF who conducted the investigation on behalf of the DRM also had not examined the blood relatives and friends of the deceased to accept it as a fair investigation. The trial court dismissing the claim petition relying upon the DRM report is considered as not in accordance with law and the procedure established under the Act and Rules. The judgment relied by the Tribunal in Kamrunnissa Case (cited supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the case, as the dead body of the deceased was found on the road in the said case. As such, it was held therein that there was no possibility that the accident occurred when the deceased was boarding train in the Railway Station. The Tribunal also failed to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rina 18 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 Devi Case (cited supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had clearly stated as to how the burden of proof could be discharged by the applicants.
29. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A.II.(U).No.30 of 2018 dated 14.10.2019. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rina Devi Case (cited supra) and of the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Smt. Radha Yadav v. Union of India 12, the applicants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs and the compensation shall be apportioned amount the appellants - claimants as follows:
S. No. Appellants Amount to be distributed
1. Appellant No.1 (wife) Rs.3,50,000/-
2, Appellant No.2 (daughter) Rs.3,50,000/-
3. Appellant No.3 (mother of the deceased) Rs.1,00,000/-
30. The respondent Railways is directed to deposit the above awarded compensation before the Tribunal within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the appellants - claimants are entitled to withdraw the said compensation as apportioned above without furnishing any security.
No order as to costs.
12 LAWS (Cal) 2017 3 47 19 Dr.GRR, J cma_1156_2019 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date: 24th June, 2024.
Nsk.