Telangana High Court
Union Of India, Secunderabad vs Smt. G. Ielamma, Warangal Dist And 6 ... on 23 June, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.771 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2015 in O.A.A.No.362 of 2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad i.e., the respondent Railways has filed the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case, are as under.
The applicants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, filed application under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one G.Sammaiah (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased') in an untoward train accident. It is alleged that on 04.11.2005 the deceased along with his wife was traveling from Jangaon to Warangal with fruit baskets after purchasing journey tickets in train No.7406 Krishna Express and the deceased had accidentally fell down from the train between Kajipet and Warangal and died on the spot. Hence, the claim. 2
4. The respondent Railways filed written statement denying the averments of claim petition and contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the death might have occurred due to his own negligence and criminal act and the injuries are self inflicted. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased?
2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question?
3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train as alleged?
4. To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, the first applicant who is the wife of the deceased was examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked.
7. The Railway Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence has awarded the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the 3 date of filing of claim application to the date of order and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the entire amount is realized. The Tribunal further directed that the interest from 6.1.2009, the date of dismissal of application for default, to 3.7.2009, the date of restoration of application, shall not be payable.
8. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Railway Claim Tribunal, Secunderabad, the respondent has filed the present appeal.
9. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Railways and the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants and perused the record.
10. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was available and that the inquest report does not disclose that the wife of the deceased was traveled along with the deceased, as she did not produce journey tickets.
11. Now the issue to be resolved is whether the deceased can be held to be a bona fide passenger having been found on the railway track without a ticket.
4
12. Perused the evidence of AW.1, wherein she has categorically stated that on the date of incident i.e., on 04.11.2005 she along with the deceased was traveling from Jangaon to Warangal with fruit baskets after purchasing a valid journey tickets by train No. 7406 Krishna Express and in the meantime, her husband has accidentally fallen from the train and died on the spot. She also filed Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report, Ex.A2 attested copy of Inquest report, Ex.A3 attested copy of postmortem examination report, Ex.A4 attested copy of final report and Ex.A5 Family members certificate.
13. Ex.A1 First Information Report discloses that the Station Master has given complaint on the information given by Keyman Lingamurthy that one male dead body was lying between Warangal and Kajipet junction. Inquest report also discloses that the deceased was traveled in the Train No.7406 Krishna Express. Postmortem examination report also discloses that the deceased died in train accident and he was brought by the Railway Police for conducting postmortem examination. Ex.A4 final report also discloses that the police after thorough enquiry have filed charge sheet stating that the deceased was a fruit vendor and he has been traveled in train No.7406 Krishna 5 Express between Warangal and Kajipet and accidentally fallen from the train, sustained injuries and died on the spot and that there is no foul play suspected in the death of the deceased. AW.1 was cross-examined at length but nothing was elicited to disbelieve her evidence. Furthermore, Exs.A1 to A4 have clearly established that the deceased has traveled in the train No.7406 Krishna Express and in between Warangal and Kajipet and has accidentally fallen from the train, sustained injuries and died on the spot.
14. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined. RW-2 the then Station Master has deposed that Keyman Lingamurthy informed him that a male dead body was lying between the up and down lines and based on the said information, he issued a message Ex.R1 to the GRP and RPF. Mr.Lingamurthy was examined as RW-1 and he also narrated the same fact. Even the DRM report under Ex.R1 does not dispute about the occurrence of the incident. However, disputed that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as he has not possessed the journey ticket and further contended that the deceased might have fallen due to his own negligence and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation to the applicants.
6
15. In Union of India v. Rina Devi1, the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:
"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."
16. In view of the principle laid down in the above said authority, it is evident that the initial burden to prove that the deceased was bona fide passenger is on the claimants. AW1, who is the wife of the deceased categorically deposed that her husband traveled in Krishna Express as a bona fide passenger. It is pertinent to note that the appellant Railways pleaded that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger, as he is not having railway ticket, the alleged incident of falling from the running train is not witnessed by anyone and no eyewitnesses were examined. Further, the wife of the deceased, who has purchased the ticket along with the deceased, has not reported 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572 7 about the accident to anyone. However, the appellant Railways have not adduced any evidence, either oral or documentary to substantiate their contention. It is also important to note that on the information given by RW.1 Lingamurthy, Gangman only, RW.2 the then Station House Officer informed to the GRP and RPF. That itself shows that the respondent is aware of the incident of falling of the deceased from the train. Further AW.1 who was a co-passenger has testified that they purchased the journey tickets worth Rs.44/- for travel from Jangaon to Warangal and she was also examined at the time of inquest on the same day of occurrence of incident. Nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony.
17. Thus, in view of the above discussion, it is clear that the applicants have discharged their burden of proving that the deceased was bona fide passenger by examining AW.1. Therefore, the burden shifts on to the respondent, who has denied that the deceased is a bona fide passenger. The learned Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that the burden to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger was not established, then only an adverse inference can be drawn to the effect that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket. Apart from that, the claimants have 8 produced sufficient evidence by examining AW.1 and also by exhibiting documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A1 to A5 to show that the deceased has purchased ticket before travelling in the said train and thereby the deceased is a bona fide passenger.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and came to the right conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and thereby awarded a reasonable compensation. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, there are no merits in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
19. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 23.06.2023 PGP