Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kunwar Bai vs Union Of India on 5 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JA B AL P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 5th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 3715 of 2022
Between:-
1 Smt. Kunwar Bai W/o late
Lakhanlal Prajapati, aged
about 43 years, occupation:
Housewife
2 Brajmohan Prajapati S/o Late
LakhanLal Prajapati, Aged
About 22 Years, Occupation:
Labour
3 Brajesh Prajapati S/o Late
LakhanLal Prajapati, Aged
About 19 Years, Occupation:
Labour
all R/o village Khajra
Harchand post Khurai, P.S.
and Tehsil Khurai District
Sagar (Madhya Pradesh)
.....Petitioners
(By Shri M.Shafiquallah - Advocate)
AND
Union Of India Through General
Manager West Central Railway
Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)
.....Respondents
(By Shri Sandeep Kumar Shukla- Advocate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 21 .11.2023
2
Pronounced on : 05.12.2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment , coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:-
Judgment This appeal is preferred Under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1987 Act") by the appellants/claimants aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.07.2022 in O.A/No.IIu/BPL/197/2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as "the RCT") whereby, claim application filed by the appellants/claimants filed under section 16 of the 1987 Act for compensation in lieu of death of Lakhanlal Prajapti has been rejected.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrived before the RCT.
3. The brief facts of this case are that a claim petition was filed before the RCT, Bhopal by the wife and sons of the deceased, Lakhanlal Prajapati who died on 20.01.2018 in a train accident while he was travelling from Jaruakheda to Makroniya to visit his father-in-law Ramdayal Prajapati, when he was travelling by Katni passenger holding a valid second class ordinary ticket. That there was heavy rush in the train and just when Lakhanlal Prajapti was trying to boarding the train, owing to heavy rush and push of passenger, he lost his balance and fell from the running train at Jaruakheda, Railway Station, as a result, he suffered grievous injury. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Jaruakheda for treatment. From there he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sagar and when he was in serious condition and he was shifted to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. During treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 21.01.2018. The cause of death of the deceased had occurred owning to fall from the train. The said incident was informed by 3 CMO, Dr.Mohit Gupta to Hamidia, Police Chowki on telephone and the case was registered vide Merg No.036/2018 and later the original case diary was transferred to Government Railway Police Station, Sagar through the post where GRP/Sagar registered a case vide merg no.12/2018 under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per column no.7 of the claim petition, it is mentioned that the deceased was travelling Sagar to Makroniya on the strength of journey ticket bearing No.ULR6175469, the incident occurred causes serious injuries and died in the train accident.
4. The claimants no.1 to 3 who are the wife and sons of the deceased Lakhanlal Prajapati filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs Rupees) before the RCT on account of the death of the deceased in an untoward incident occurred on 20.01.2018.
5. The respondent- Railway filed written statement through the General Manager, Western Railway Church Gate Mumbai and has contested the claim filed by the appellants, wherein they have denied the incident to fall within the ambit of an untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c)(2) r/w section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989. Further contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train and no travel ticket was recovered either at the scene of occurrence or from the possession of the deceased and railway cannot be held liable for compensation and prays to dismiss the petition.
6. In view of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :
1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train in question at the time of accident ?
2. Whether the deceased had died in an untoward incident, while travelling in the train within the meaning of section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act?4
3. Whether the respondent Railway Administration is protected under the exemption of clause of section 124(A) of Railways Act and is not liable to pay compensation ?
4. Whether the applicant is the legal dependent of the deceased to claim/receive the compensation, if any, granted ?who else are the dependents.
5. Relief and cost ?
7. In order to establish the claim of the applicants at the time of inquiry, the first applicant-Kunwar Bai (wife) W/o of Late Lakhanlal Prajapati was examined as AW-1 and exhibits A-1 to A-14 were got marked on behalf of the appellants. None were examined on behalf of respondent and exhibit R-1 marked i.e. Divisional Railway Manager inquiry report .
8. On appreciation of evidence of AW-1 and placing reliance on Ex. A-1 to A-14 and Ex.R-1, the learned Tribunal in the instant case came to the conclusion that the deceased was neither a bonafide passenger of the train nor did he die owing to the accident falling from the train and further held that the death of the deceased had occurred due to untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c)(2) r/w section 124 (A) of the Act, 1989 and the claim of the applicants was dismissed.
9. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned RCT, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the judgment dated 18.07.2022 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and to grant compensation to the appellants.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on record.
511. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation but committed an error while dismissing the claim application holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train inspite of the deceased holding a traveling ticket from Jaruakheda to Makroniya, further submit that the said fact mentioned in the investigation report dated 28.09.2018. Further contended that the occurrence was an outcome of an untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and further contended that there was a huge crowd in the compartment and jolting of the train due to which the deceased lost his balance and unexpectedly fell down from the running train and further submit that the deceased has purchased a ticket and traveling in a train the incident occurred and he is a bonafide passenger has been discharged and the onus has been shifted to on the railway authority which has not been discharged by them and further contended that the findings of the Claims Tribunal are perverse. It is further contended that the cause of death is proved due to the outcome of an untoward incident of the deceased u/s 123(c) (2) r/w section 124(A) of the Act and being a bonafide passenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submit that the claim taking the defence that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger because the journey ticket was not found either at the scene of occurrence or from the possession of the deceased or even at the time of making an inquest report. Further contended that the allegations of death of deceased due to untoward incident was denied and, therefore, Western Central Railways "WCR" is not liable to pay any compensation.
13. In the light of the above arguments, the points for determination is :-
6"Whether there was any merit in the petition to award compensation ?"
14. Considered the submissions of the respective counsels representing the parties, perused and assessed the entire evidence including the exhibited documents. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal framed issues and held that the death of the deceased had occurred due to an untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c)(2) r/w section 124 (A) of the Railways Act and deceased was not a bonafide passenger because his journey ticket was not found from his possession or at the scene of occurrence.
15. This Court is of the view that the learned RCT gravely erred in holding that the appellants were not entitled for any compensation u/s 124(A) of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling from the train of his negligence, even if, it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train and succumbed to death due to his negligence, it will not have any effect on the compensation payable u/s 124(A) of the Act. For ready reference, relevant Chapter and sections are reproduced as under:-
8. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123, the first section of the Chapter, has definition clauses.
Clause (c) defines "untoward incident" which insofar as relevant for the present case is as under:
"123. (c) 'untoward incident' means--
(1)(i)-(iii) (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."7
9. Section 124-A of the Act provides as follows:
"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.--When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the Railway Administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the Railway Administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to--
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'passenger' includes--
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."
816. As per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passenger would be an untoward incident. As per section 124(A), the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of untoward incident.
17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there are two necessary ingredients that need to be proved on strict parameters; first, the deceased being a 'bonafide passenger' and the second being occurrence of an "untoward incident". As per the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, those ingredients have not been found proven, therefore, the present appeal may be dismissed.
18. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, para 29 concludes as thus:
"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".
19. In view of the said legal position and on the basis of the pleadings and the material placed on record before the learned Claims Tribunal, it is required to be analysed whether the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal are just or perverse.
920. As per the material available on record that on the information given by Dr.Mohit Gupta, CMO to Hamidia Police Chowki and a case was registered vide mergno.036/2018, the person by the name Lakhanlal who was travelling in a passenger train fallen from the train and thereafter the original case diary was transferred to GRP/Sagar through the post, where the GRP/Sagar registered a case vide merg no.12/2018 dated 06.02.2018 stating in a column that the passenger fallen from the train of Bina-Katni Passenger (route from Bina to Jaruakheda) and shifted him to the hospital for treatment and he died on 21.01.2018 and an inquest was conducted specifying the circumstances under which the accident took place, the relevant thereto stated he died on account of fallen from the train and later the post-mortem was conducted by RMO, Gandhi Medical College Bhopal and the Doctor opined regarding the cause of death as under:
"the deceased would have an appearance to have died of craniocerebral damage due to hard and blunt object/surface impact and time of death within 12 hours before autopsy".
21. In support of the same, the DRM report dated 23.10.2018 was submitted by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force Jabalpur. He stated that according to the investigation report of the Investigating Officer it has been found that the collected documentary evidence that the deceased Lakhallal Prajapati was boarding in a moving train at Jaruakheda station during the journey from Jaruakheda station to Makronia in train Bina-Katni passenger on 20.01.2018, he fell from the train, due to which, he suffered serious injuries and died during the treatment.
22. Apart from, another report submitted by Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force Jabalpur dated 15.11.2018, he concluded that according to the investigation report the investigation officer 10 has been found from the documentary evidence collected during the investigation that the deceased Lakhanlal was boarding the moving train from Jaruakheda station to Makronia in a train Bina-Katni passenger on 20.01.2018. He fell from the train due to which he suffered serious injuries and died during treatment, according to the police investigation, during the search, the deceased was not found with a travel ticket but the documents produced by the claimant showed a railway travel ticket no.ULA-61754769 from Jaruakheda to Makronia issued from Jaruakheda station has been attached. Besides the above report, the investigating officer, P.P.Pandey addressed a letter to the Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF Sagar dated 28.09.2018 under whose signature a report was prepared. He stated that the travel ticket no.ULA-61754769 from the Jaruakheda to Makronia was issued to deceased and further in his letter 28.09.2018 the documents annexed are mentioned as under (1) Letter from merg intimation police Sagar, GRP Sagar (2) Police Chowki Hamidia letter dated 21.01.2018, (3) Rural intimation of police Chowki Hamidia (4) Map Panchnama (5) Rail Travel Ticket No.ULA- 61754769 (6) Death body delivery (7) Post-mortem report (8) Statement of Ram Prasad, Prajapati Brijmohan, Smt. Kunwar Bai, Ashul Dubey(9) Adhar card of the deceased. He concluded that the incident occurred when the deceased was boarding the train at Jaruakheda station, he unexpectedly fallen from the running train.
23. In support of above documentary evidence, the statement of Ram Prasad is very crucial whether the deceased travelling in a passenger train with a ticket. He stated that the ticket for traveling in a train was submitted by him along with the claim application. Looking at the above facts, the finding of the investigation officer which is after considering the inquest report, investigation done by P.P.Pandey stated that the deceased Lakhanlal Prajapti 11 boarded in Bina-Katni passenger train and fallen from the train and sustained injuries and died while undergoing treatment. Considering the said report dated 29.08.2018, this Court is of the view that the initial burden that the deceased passenger had having been valid ticket has been discharged and shifting the onus on the railway administration to disprove the sad fact. Nothing has been placed before the Claims Tribunal or brought on record during hearing that the railway administration has discharged the burden of not having a railway ticket with the deceased passenger except to say that during recovery ticket was not found. The railway has failed to examine any of witnesses to establish the fact that the deceased was travelling without ticket and since the deceased boarded the train as per the investigation report dated 28.09.2018, the presumption would be that he had valid authority to travel in the train. The tribunal was not justified in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger merely because the ticket was not recovered from the dead body of the deceased would not ipso facto that he was not travelling on a validly issued railway ticket.
24. In the absence of any cogent evidence by examining any of the witnesses by the respondent-Railway Administration by producing documentary evidence, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the railway administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed.
25. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hariram Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 1 MPHT 111 has held as under:-
"15. In this context reference can be had of a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Satish Patidar 2003 (4) M.P.L.J. 306; wherein it is held :
"27. This brings us to point No. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as the claimants could not establish that he 12 purchased the ticket. The burden to prove that the deceased had a valid ticket during his journey which he proceeded cannot be placed on dependents. Obviously, such burden of proof is impossible to be discharged by the dependents who can have no means of knowledge whether the deceased before boarding the train had purchased the valid ticket. It is likely that such a deceased passenger had a valid ticket but the same was lost in accident. To place the onus of proof dependents would amount to denial of the benefit of legislation to them for reasons beyond their control. In the case before us, the presumption has to be drawn that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, we affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
26. In view of the above decision and this Court is of the opinion that as per the law laid down in Rina Devi case (supra), it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Lakhanlal Prajapati died in an untoward incident which took place on 20.01.2018 while travelling in passenger train no.51602 Bina-Katni express and he was bonafide passenger in view of the documents enclosed by P.P.Pandey Investigating Officer forwarded to Divisional Security Commissioner dated 28.09.2018 and travel ticket enclosed along with other documents stated (supra), therefore, the findings is adversely recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, hence it is set-aside. This Court is of the opinion as per the provisions contained in section 124(A) of the Railways Act and Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the appellants are entitled to claim compensation.
27. In view of the above, it is held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who died due to the accident fallen from the train which was an untoward incident u/s 123(c)(2) r/s section 124 (A) of Railways Act, 1989, therefore, the learned Tribunal grossly erred in non-suiting the appellants.
1328. The appellants/claimants are held entitled to seek compensation, the amendment came into existence prior to the date of accident and the filing of claim petition is dated 05.06.2018. The Compensation Rules, 1990 were amended w.e.f. 01.01.2017, therefore, the amount of compensation has to be arrived at while taking into account the Amended Rules.
As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav reported in (2019) 3 SCC 410, relevant para 11 is reproduced herein:-
11. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572] is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with 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. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration.14
29. Accordingly and as per the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that allow this appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, consequently, the claim application is allowed. The appellants are held entitled compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Only).The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondent within a period of eight weeks. No order as costs.
(DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA) JUDGE rk...
Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2023.12.06 10:52:54 +05'30'