Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G. Lakshmayya Alias G. Lakshmaiah Alias ... vs Union Of India on 8 December, 2023
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.80 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
The present Appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed in OA/II/u/308 of 2011 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravti Bench, Guntur (for short "the Tribunal").
2. Heard Smt. N. S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The claim of appellants/applicants before the Tribunal is that the application has been filed by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A and 125 of Indian Railways Act 1989 against the respondent Railway administration claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest from the date of accident and costs for the death of Sri G. Srikanth (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased")in an alleged untoward incident that occurred on 24.07.2011. The claim of the appellants is that on 24.7.2011, the deceased who was working as a Painter had gone to Tenali 2 and from there he was accompanied by his mason Shaik Mastan Vali to Guntur. After completion of his work at Guntur, he purchased 2nd class train journey ticket from Guntur to Repalel for himself and his mason and boarded the general compartment of Train No.77222 Guntur-repalle Passenger. While the train was arriving at Tenali Railway station, as there was a heavy rush of passengers in the compartment, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train in between the platform and the train. As a result of which, the deceased sustained severe multiple crush, severe injuries and died on the spot at about 08.35 hrs., on 24.7.2011 and the said train ticket was lost in the said accident.
4. The respondent filed its written statement and denied all the allegations made in the claim application and stated that, in the Statutory Inquiry report, known as DRM report, it was concluded that there was no eye witness to the incident of falling down from the running train as alleged and that the ticket recovered during the inquest does not pertain to the journey during which the incident happened, which indicates the deceased was unauthorized and hence 3 the Railway administration was not liable to pay compensation.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) of the deceased?
ii) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?
iii) Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?
6. During course of the trial, the appellant No.1/applicant No.1 was examined as AW.1 and the co- passenger Shaik Mastan Vali was examined as AW.2. AW.1 was not an eye witness to the incident whereas A.W.2 was an eye witness to the incidents. The applicants have relied upon certified copies of FIR, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Certificate, Bank passbook of the joint SB account held by the applicants, copy of Ration Card of the applicants and Original copies of Death Certificate & Family Member Certificate. The respondent Railway administration has relied on statutory investigation report containing several documents in evidence.
4
7. Basing on the facts and circumstances, attending circumstances and preponderance of evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.
8. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of Tribunal is contrary to law and contrary to facts of the case and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. She further submits that the Tribunal has shown narrow minded approach, while adjudicating the case. She further submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the death of the deceased was not due to an untoward incident. The Tribunal adopted a very narrow approach in this matter. The act is beneficial piece of legislation. She further submits that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on erroneous appreciation of the evidence and material on record.
9. To support her contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kamukayi and others versus 5 Union of India and others1, and also in a case of Union of India versus Rina devi2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the initial burden that the deceased passenger was having a valid ticket has been discharged shifting onus on the Railway Administration to disprove the said fact.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants while relying upon the above decisions requests this Court in similar circumstances, the same order may be passed in this case also. She further submits that in absence of any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the report of Divisional Railway Manager, which is Statutory Investigation report that there is no eye witness or evidence to prove that the deceased had actually travelled in the train or fell from the train and the guard of the train stated that when train arrived Tenali at 08.35 hrs., one male person tried to get down from the 1 Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023, dated 16.5.22023 2 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9489543/ 6 running train opposite to Parcel Office, slipped and fell down between platform and train and was cut into two pieces. He further submits that there is no train journey ticket was recovered from the dead body of the deceased or from the vicinity of the place of incident. There is no corroborative evidence to support the averment. Therefore, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the said train.
12. On perusing the entire material available on record, this Court observed that, the appellants in their claim stated that the deceased was travelling from Guntur to Tenali by train No.77222 in general compartment by holding a 2nd class train journey ticket. During inquest, a Season ticket No.19229985 from Tenali to Bapatla and a book with phone numbers were found near the deceased. Further an Express train ticket No.69787469 from Bapatla to Tenali valued Rs.21/- and a black purse containing cash of Rs.59/- was recovered in addition to some coins found on the metal stones. It is also observed that AW.1, who the father of the deceased, in his chief affidavit stated that, he is not an eye witness to the incident. He came to iknow only aboutl the death of his son through Railway police and he 7 reached Tenali at 11.00 hrs. he also stated that he had not filed any train tickets showing the journey made by his son on 24.7.2011 either from Bapatla to Tenali and Tenali to Guntur or the return journey from Guntur to Tenali.
13. As seen from the evidence of co-passenger I,e,m Shaik Mastan Vali, in his chief affidavit, he categorically stated that he was an eye witness to the incident and stated that he saw the deceased purchase a train trickeet for both of them costing Rs.10/- and that they both boarded the general compartment of the said train on 24.7.2011 and he also stated that the ticket was with the deceased. While he went inside the train, the deceased was standing near the door. He saw the deceased falling down from the train and was also present during the Inquest during which no ticket was found with the deceased. He also stated that he informed the police that the deceased purchased ticket in his presence.
14. As far as the bonafide of the deceased as a passenger is concerned, this is a case where the relevant journey ticket has not been found. In such cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Union of India Vs. Rina 8 Devi3, wherein it was held that the mere presence of a dead body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket which 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.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Section 123 (c )(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the accident falling of any passenger from a train carrying passers, reads as under:
Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989
123. Definitions.--In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in section 124;
(b) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:--
(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;
(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;
(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;3 Civil Appeal No.4945 of 2018 9
(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.
25 [(c) "untoward incident" means--
(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
16. On one hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid journey ticket. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that no railway ticket was found on the body of the deceased. It is indeed a matter of concern that the Government Railway police who are supposed to investigate all such deaths are too happy to close cases of body found near the track as one due to fall from a train. In this case they have not applied their mind as to how anyone who has allegedly fallen from a running train could be found in the state that the deceased was found. The deceased in the present case is not shown to be a bonafide passenger and his death is not on account of an untoward incident. Due to the said reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 10
17. In a case of Union of India (stated supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, on the burden of proof, which emphasized that any person found dead or injured on railway premises is presumed to be a bona fide passenger unless the railway administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse.
18. In the light of judgment of UOI v. Radha Yadav4, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "because death is proved due to outcome of untoward incident of the deceased being a bona fide passenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded."
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the material available on record, it is observed that the respondent is failed to establish that whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not, as the burden lies on the respondent authorities and hence the railway administration is liable to pay the adequate compensation. Therefore, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the considered 4 (2019) 3 SCC 410 11 opinion that while setting aside the impugned judgment, inclined to allow the present appeal.
20. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed in OA/II/u/308 of 2011 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravti Bench, Guntur, is hereby set aside. The appellants were awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its realization. The respondent, Union of India, is directed to pay the compensation amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 08-12-2023
Gvl
12
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.80 of 2020 Date : 08.12.2023 Gvl 13