Telangana High Court
Potnuru Easwararao, Srikakulam Dist ... vs Union Of India, Rep By The G.M., ... on 14 June, 2024
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.520 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:-
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for short, the Act) aggrieved by the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (hereinafter be referred as 'the Tribunal') in O.A.(IIU)No.357 of 2008, dated 31.03.2017, wherein, the claim petition filed by the applicants seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest for the death of Sri Potnuru Durga Rao (hereinafter be referred as 'the deceased') was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants, who are three sons and daughter of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest on account of the death of the deceased in an untoward incident that occurred on 22.06.2008. As stated by the applicants, on 22.06.2008, the deceased, along with his second son by name Sri Umamaheswarrao @ Uma started from their house and came to Srikakulam Railway Station at about 18.30 hours and purchased 2 MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017 one general ticket from Srikakulam to Visakhapatnam with an intention to go to his sister's house and boarded Puri-Tirupati Express Train in General compartment. After departure of the train, his second son Uma returned to his village. Due to sudden jerks of the train, the deceased had fallen down from the said train between Garividi Nellimarla Railway Station and received injuries and died. Hence, the claim petition.
4. The respondent-Railways filed written statement and denied the averments made in the claim application and contended that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of Indian Railways Act, 1989 and that the deceased was not in possession of any journey ticket and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim application.
5. Based on the above pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased?
(ii) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?
(iii) Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation as claimed and to what relief?3
MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017
6. The applicant No.2, who is the son of the deceased, was examined as AW1. In support of his evidence, he got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on his behalf. On behalf of the respondent/Railways, no witness was examined, but Ex.R1-Report of Divisional Railway Manager was marked.
7. The learned Tribunal, upon hearing the arguments made by the learned counsel on both sides and considering the material available on record, dismissed the claim application of the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants.
8. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent/Railways. Perused the material available on record.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that though the appellants have proved their case by discharging their initial burden by examining AW1 and also by relying upon the documents under Exs.A1 to A7, but the learned Tribunal, in the absence of rebuttal evidence with regard to the documents marked, dismissed the claim application of the applicants erroneously. It is also contended by the learned counsel for appellants that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the 4 MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017 respondent/Railways failed to examine Goods Train Driver who found the dead body of the deceased at Starter signal point of Garvidi and informed to the Station Master and therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by awarding compensation to the appellants.
10. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent- Railways contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, has rightly dismissed the claim application for which interference of this Court is unwarranted and hence, prayed to dismiss the present Appeal.
11. Now the points that arise for determination are ,
1.Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as prayed for?
2.Whether the Respondent/Railways are liable to pay compensation to the applicants?
POINTS:-
12. This Court has perused the entire documents available on record. Applicant No.2, who is the son of the deceased, was examined as AW1. He stated in his evidence that on 22.06.2008 at 6.30hours, he, along with his father went to Srikakulam Road Railway Station i.e,. Amudalavalasa and purchased general ticket from Srikakulam to Visakhapatnam in Puri-Tirupathi Express train and the said ticket was kept in his father's pocket by him and after arrival of the train at 7.40 hours, his father boarded the train 5 MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017 in the general compartment and he left the station and reached home. On the next day morning i.e. on 23.06.2008, the Railway Police, Palasa, informed AW1 on a phone call that one of the person fell down from the train at Garividi railway station yard and injuries were sustained to him and died on the spot. Immediately, he informed the same to all his relatives and in support of his evidence, he got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on his behalf. Ex.A1 is the FIR registered by Railway Police of Palasa R.P.Station in Crime No.99 of 2008, under Section 174 Cr.P.C based on the death message received from Station Master, Srikakulam Road R.S, who in turn received the said message from the Driver of Diesel Light Engine (DLE) of Viskhapatnam that at 4.45 hours, one male dead body, aged about 50 years, was lying on the track near up going Gaarividi Railway Station yard. Ex.A2 is the inquest report wherein the Dy.SS, Cheepurupalli and Keyman of Cheepurupalli, were cited as panch witnesses. In the inquest report, at column III, it was mentioned that the deceased was first seen as died by the on duty Key man in the middle of KM.No.1077 and Home signal posts in between Garividi and Nellimarla Railway Stations. The injuries sustained to the deceased are that, one injury on the left side of the forehead, Nose was broken, Head was broken on the back side, Injuries on the hip portion. Upper portion of the left leg was fractured and hanging. Injury at the foot and scratch injury on the 6 MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017 right hand. The opinion expressed by the panchayatdars is that the deceased had accidentally slipped down from an unidentified UP line train and died due to the injuries received by him. Ex.A3 is the post mortem examination report wherein it was held that the cause of death of the deceased was due to an injury to vital organ brain with consequent Haemorrage and shock and the said conclusion was arrived based on the report of the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Cheepurupalli, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. It was also held that there was no foul play suspected against the death of the deceased. Ex.A4 is the Case Diary filed after conducting thorough investigation which discloses that the deceased travelled in Puri-Tirupathi Express train from Srikakulam road to Visakhapatnam Railway Station and had accidentally fallen down from the said train at Garividi Railway Station yard and sustained injuries and died on the spot. There is no foul play suspected against the death of the deceased. Ex.A5 is the proceedings of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Garividi.
Ex.A6 is the Legal Heir Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District. Ex.A7 is the Death Certificate of the deceased.
7
MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017
13. During his cross-examination by the Respondent/Railways, he admitted that no journey ticket was found with the deceased though police recovered one bag containing clothes, gold ring, papers containing telephone numbers.
14. The Respondent -Railways did not adduce any oral evidence, however, filed Ex.R1-Divisional Railway Manager's report wherein, it is held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of train No.7479 (Puri-Tirupathi Express) on 22.06.2008 as he do not possess any journey ticket during inquest and the enquiry conducted reveals that no untoward incident or use of ACP (Alarm Chain Pull) took place between Nellimarla and Garividi Railway Stations and if the deceased had really travelled inside the compartment, it would have come to the notice of the train Guard or co-passenger of the train. But, no such thing had been reported which clearly shows that the deceased travelled negligently by sitting/standing at the doors of the compartment in open condition resulting which he fell down from the train by committing an offence under Section 156 of Railways Act. The respondent/Railways also contended that as the accident did not occur due to any lapse from Railway administration, hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants. 8
MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017
15. It is also pertinent to refer to the statement of Sri K.T.Rao, who is on duty driver of DLE.NO.14525, who deposed that he arrived Garimidi Railway Station at 00.53 hours on 23.06.2008 along with Train Guard B.Rama Rao and he performed shunting duty from 2.30 hours to 4.30 hours at Garividi Railway yard and during the course of yard shunting at about 4.30 hours, while he was approaching from Line No.3 to Line No.4, stopped the engine waiting for shunt signal. In the meantime, he noticed that one male dead body was lying on right side track. Immediately, he informed the mater to SS on duty, Garividi Railway station for necessary action.
16. During the course of his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seen any valuable article and journey ticket lying near the dead body.
17. It is pertinent to state that in the inquest report, it is mentioned that the deceased was seen died by on duty Keyman-Sri K.M.Rao on 23.06.2008. But, after going through the roster register, it was found that there was no keyman by name K.M.Rao.
18. The statement of Gangman-R.Mallesu shows that he acted as Keyman on 23.06.2008 from 7.00 hours in the morning and proceeded from Garividi Railway station from K.M.No.794 to KM.No.797 in between Garividi Railway station and Nellimarla 9 MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017 Railway station and he had not seen the dead body during his duty period.
19. Further, the statement of Sri B.Appanna, who is on duty train guard of train No.7479 of Puri-Tirupathi Express clearly discloses that he was not reported about any untoward incident between Garividi and Nellimarla stations and there was no rush on the said train on the said date of occurrence or he felt any jerk during the enroute in the said section.
20. It is pertinent to state that as per Exs.A1 to A4 i.e., FIR, inquest report, post mortem examination report and Case Diary, the deceased had travelled in Puri-Tirupathi Express train from Srikakulam road to Visakhapatnam Railway Station and had accidentally fallen down from the said train at Garividi Railway Station yard, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Further, as per the statement of on duty driver of DLE.No.14525, he arrived Garimidi Railway Station at 00.53 hours on 23.06.2008 along with Train Guard B.Rama Rao and performed shunting duty from 2.30 hours to 4.30 hours at Garividi Railway yard and during the course of performing the said shunting duty, at about 4.30 hours, while he approached from Line No.3 to Line No.4, stopped the engine waiting for shunt signal. In the meantime, he noticed that one male dead body was lying on right side track. Immediately, he 10 MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017 informed the matter to on duty Station Superintendent, Garividi Railway station for necessary action. In order to disprove the said statement, the respondent/Railways failed to examine the Driver of Diesel Light Engine (DLE). Therefore, from the above discussion it is clear that there occurred an untoward incident which resulted into the death of the deceased whose dead body was found lying on the track near up going Gaarividi Railway Station yard.
21. Now, coming to the next aspect whether deceased was a bonafide passenger or not. Though AW1 stated in his evidence that he along with his father went to Srikakulam road Railway Station i.e., Amudalavalasa and purchased general ticket from Srikakulam to Visakhapatnam in Puri-Tirupathi Express train and the said ticket was kept in his father's pocket by him, but during investigation, Police recovered only one bag containing clothes, gold ring, papers containing telephone numbers.
22. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Rina Devi v.Union of India 1 , held as follows:-
"We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572 11 MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017 injured or deceased was a bonafide 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 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. 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."
23. In the instant case, the applicants have adduced evidence of AW1 along with the documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A1 to A7 and thus, they have discharged their initial burden. Accordingly, the burden shifts on to the respondent-railways to establish that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. In discharge of such burden, the respondents have not adduced any oral evidence, however filed Ex.R1 i.e.,DMR report wherein, it is opined that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of Train No.7479 (Puri-Tirupathi Express) on 22.06.2008 as he do not possess any journey ticket during inquest and the enquiry 12 MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017 conducted reveals that no untoward incident or use of ACP took place between Nellimarla and Garividi Railway Stations. It is also stated by the Respondent/Railways that the deceased travelled negligently by sitting /standing at the doors of the compartment and committed an offence under Section 156 of Railways Act. A perusal of the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A4 shows that the deceased was aged 50 years and the body of a 50 years old man cannot permit him to sit or stand at the doors of a running train. Hence, it can be treated as an accidental fall from a running train.
24. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal had erroneously dismissed the claim application despite the applicants having been discharged their initial burden. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding given by the leaned Tribunal. Hence, the applicants are entitled for compensation.
25. Coming to the quantum of compensation, in case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment i.e., on 26.01.2014, the prevailing basic figure in respect of death case was Rs.4.00 lakhs, which has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.8.00 lakhs as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. Therefore, this Court is of the 13 MGP,J CMA.No.520 of 2017 considered opinion that the applicants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for death of the deceased.
26. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the Judgment dated 31.03.2017 passed in O.A.II(U).No.357 of 2008, on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, is set aside and the applicants are granted compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 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 applicants are entitled to withdraw the same in equal shares without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
27. Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.14.06.2024 ysk