Telangana High Court
A.Lakshmi, Kurnool Dist vs The Union Of India, Secbad on 20 November, 2018
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.147 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is filed by the appellant- applicant challenging the order, dated 19.10.2012, passed in O.A.A.No.161 of 2002 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad ('the Tribunal', for brevity), whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the appellants claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Yadavalli Seshaiah (father of the applicant) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train No.523 Secunderabad-Guntur Passenger at Km.No.258 near Nandyal railway station while travelling from Betamcherla to Nandyal on 09.05.2002.
2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant-applicant would contend that the applicant is the daughter of the deceased-Yadavalli Seshaiah; he died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train No.523 Secunderabad-Guntur Passenger at Km.No.258 near Nandyal railway station while travelling from Betamcherla to Nandyal on 09.05.2002; the same is mentioned in the first information report as well as in the inquest panchanama; the ticket details are also mentioned therein; the Tribunal erroneously, relying on Ex.R.1-combined train report issued by Guard and Driver of the train, was pleased -2- to dismiss the claim application of the applicant, as the main Driver of the train was not examined to prove the subject death as a suicidal one or a case of self-inflicted injury or death; the applicant is the sole dependent on the deceased; the findings of the Tribunal are erroneous; and ultimately, prayed to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation in favour of the appellant-applicant by allowing the appeal.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Railways would contend that there is specific evidence of the co-driver R.W.1 and Ex.R.1-combined train report to prove that the deceased while passing suddenly came in between the track suffered injuries and died; the first information report and inquest panchanama was not prepared basing on the statement of the direct witnesses; on the basis of hearsay evidence, those documents were prepared; in the light of evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.R.1, no reliance can be placed over the said documents; the Tribunal had elaborately dealt with all these aspects and rightly dismissed the claim application of the applicant; the findings of the Tribunal are based on evidence and record; there is no infirmity in the impugned order; and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
5. In view of the above submissions, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:-
1. Whether the deceased-Yadavalli Seshaiah was a bona fide passenger of the train No.523 Secunderabad-Guntur Passenger and died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Km.258 near Nandyal railway station while travelling from Betamcherla to Nandyal on 09.05.2002?-3-
2. Whether the appellant-applicant is entitled to any compensation as claimed?
3. Whether the impugned order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside?
4. To what relief?
Points 1 to 4:
6. The case of the applicant is that the deceased- Yadavalli Seshaiah died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train No.523 Secunderabad-Guntur Passenger at Km.No.258 near Nandyal railway station while travelling from Betamcherla to Nandyal on 09.05.2002. At the time of death the deceased was having a valid II class general ticket bearing No.28361 to travel from Betamcherla to Nandyal. To substantiate the claim of the appellants-applicants, the applicant-daughter of the deceased deposed as A.W.1 and got examined the investigating officer as A.W.2 and also got marked Ex.A.1-attested copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2-attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3-attested copy of postmortem examination report, Ex.A.4-death certificate, Ex.A.5-Family Members Certificate and Ex.A.6-case diary. On behalf of the respondent-Railways, Assistant Driver of the subject train was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1-copy of combined train report issued by Guard and Driver was marked.
7. The Tribunal had placed reliance on the evidence of R.W.1-Assistant Driver and Ex.R.1-copy of combined train report by the Guard and Driver who worked on subject train No.523 on 09.05.2002 to ply between Dhone to Donakonda. His evidence is that while he was watching on the LC gate, one person -4- walking on the left side of the track, suddenly entered the track and tried to cross the track, then the cattle guard of the engine hit that man, on which he fell down on the left side of the track. Then the train was stopped by the driver and they backed the train and informed the occurrence of the accident to the Guard through walkie-talkie. The driver and the guard took the injured man and thereafter the injured person was handed over to Station Master at Nandyal. He has also stated that a combined report was prepared by the Driver and Guard and got it marked as Ex.R.1. Ex.R.1 corroborates the evidence of R.W.1. R.W.1 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, wherein he mentioned the manner how the injured person was taken to the Guard room and then handed over to the Station Master at Nandyal. This R.W.1 is an independent person. He has no reason or any cause to depose against the applicant.
8. A.W.2 is one of the investigating officers. According to him, he did not see the ticket and the Assistant Station Master told him the ticket number. He also stated that he kept the ticket with the Assistant Station Master. When A.W.2 incorporated the ticket number in the relevant message, etc., he would have seen the ticket physically and got it incorporated. Ex.A.1-F.I.R. in the instant case was issued based on the information given by the Assistant Station Master, Nandyal. As per the evidence of R.W.1, the injured was handed over to the Station Master. In the first information report, ticket No.28361 is incorporated. A.W.2 produced the case diary marked as Ex.A.6 containing 37 pages, it does not contain the journey -5- ticket. When the Driver of the train and the Guard handed over the injured person to the Station Master, the Station Master is the appropriate person to state with regard to the circumstances of the case. There is no such evidence at all from the side of the Station Master. The Tribunal, while appreciating the evidence of A.W.2, held that A.W.2 has conducted perfunctory investigation into the case, without examining the ticket and recording the statement of the drivers of the train, etc. So, no credibility can be given to the evidence of A.W.2. A.W.1 is only a hearsay witness. Ex.A.2-inquest report was also prepared on hearsay evidence. When there is specific evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 demonstrating the circumstances which lead to the injuries suffered by the deceased, Ex.A.1-F.I.R. and Ex.A.2-inquest report and the evidence of A.W.2 are of no consequence and they are not helpful to the case of the applicant to seek benefit under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. There is no reason for R.W.1 to depose false and fabricate Ex.R.1 to defeat the claim of the applicant. All these aspects are elaborately dealt with by the Tribunal and rightly concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the subject train. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the deceased while crossing railway track, met with an accident and died. The findings of the Tribunal are based on evidence and record. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order, dated 19.10.2012, passed in O.A.A. No.161 of 2002 by -6- the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 20th November, 2018 siva