Telangana High Court
A Sreenivasa Rao, Guntur Dist And ... vs Union Of India, Secunderabad on 22 April, 2022
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.862 of 2017
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants against the orders in O.A. II (U) No.343 of 2010, dated 31.01.2017 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench.
2. The claimants are the parents of Mr.A.Sarat Babu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). They made a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the alleged untoward incident occurred on 18.08.2010.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell, are that two days prior to the incident, the deceased Sarat Babu went to his native place Karampudi, spent time with his parents and while returning to Hyderabad on 18.08.2010, he was accompanied by his uncle upto the Piduguralla Railway Station, where he purchased II Class journey ticket and boarded Train No.352/Repalle-Secunderabad Delta Passenger to go to Hyderabad. While traveling in the train, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train at KM.No.76/5- 2 GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017 6 posts between Piduguralla and Tummalacheruvu Railway Stations and died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Guard reported the incident to the Station Superintendent and GRP, Guntur, who in turn, registered a case, conducted inquest and opined that the death of the deceased occurred due to accidental fall from the train.
4. The General Manager of Railways, filed a detailed written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that as the claim does not fall within the ambit of either Section 123(c) or 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, they are not liable to pay any compensation. It is the contention of the respondents that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged untoward incident. As per the FIR, the age of the deceased was shown as 45 years which is contrary to the claim petition, wherein, the age of the deceased was shown as 24 years. It is also contended in the written statement that the Medical Officer did not opine that the death of the deceased was due to train accident, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. The last contention raised in the written statement is that the deceased was not a 3 GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017 bonafide passenger as he was not holding any journey ticket and therefore, there is no need to grant compensation.
5. The Tribunal framed the following issues :
1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased ?
2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untowad incident ?
3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief ?
6. On behalf of applicants, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but the report of the Divisional Railway Manager was marked as Ex.R-1.
7. On considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by coming to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. In view of the finding on Issue No.2, the Tribunal has concluded that there is no need to deal with Issue Nos.1 and 3.
4
GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. It is urged by the learned counsel for appellants that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the death of the deceased was reported to the railway officials 12 hours after the accident on 18.08.2010. The Tribunal has erroneously held that the deceased committed suicide based on the statements made by the Guard and the Driver of the train, which are annexed along with the report of the Divisional Railway Manager. It is also urged by the learned counsel for appellants that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the deceased committed suicide on the ground that the body of the deceased was cut into two pieces. It is also urged by the learned counsel for appellants that as per the testimony of AW-2, the deceased had purchased II Class journey ticket at Piduguralla Railway Station. Further, it is urged that as per the Notification of Railways enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- which came into effect from 01.01.2017, the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 5
GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017
10. The oral evidence of AW-1 i.e. A.Srinivasa Rao, who is the father of the deceased, disclose that on 18.08.2010, the deceased, in order to go to Secunderabad, went to Piduguralla Railway Station along with his relative B.Suryanarayana, purchased II Class journey ticket and boarded Train No.352/Repalle-Secunderabad Passenger. Later, he came to know through GRP, Guntur about the death of his son due to accidental slip from the train. His evidence further disclose that on receiving the message from GRP, Guntur, he went and identified the dead body to be of his son and collected purse, voter ID card, ATM card, Pan Card, SBI D.D. for Rs.1,200/- and luggage bag from GRP, Guntur. He attended the inquest and on completion of postmortem examination, received the dead body of the deceased. It is his specific contention that the journey ticket was not found at the time of receiving the dead body and other articles from the GRP. Ex.A-1 is the FIR, Ex.A-2 is the inquest report, Ex.A-3 is the postmortem examination report, Ex.A-4 is the ration card and Ex.A-5 is the family members certificate.
11. On looking at Exs.A-4 and A-5, it can be construed that the appellants are the parents of the deceased. On perusing Exs.A-1 to 6 GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017 A-3, it can be noticed that the Railway Police, Guntur registered a case in Crime No.108 of 2010 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. (suspicious death), on receiving message from the Railway Guard on 19.08.2010 at 01.00 hours. The message further says that on 18.08.2010 at 11.30 p.m., they received the letter from the Station Superintendent, Guntur, intimating that Mohd. A.Rahim, Guard of BCN at TMLU reported that he found one male dead body aged 45 years at K.M.No.76/5-6 between Piduguralla and Tummalacheruvu Railway Stations. The inquest report/Ex.A-2 disclose that on 18.08.2010 at 11 a.m., they found the dead body of the deceased. At Column No.4 of the inquest report, it is recorded that on 18.08.2010 at about 1.20 p.m., near Railway K.M.No.76/5-6 posts, a passenger had accidentally fell down and it was being viewed by the Guard Shaik Tajuddin. But Column No.3 of the inquest report disclose that for the first time, the dead body of the deceased was witnessed by Gangman named Ramachandra Prakash. It is admitted fact that the informant is a third person. The FIR and Column No.3 of the Inquest report specifically show that the dead body was first witnessed by one Ramachandra Prakash, whereas, 7 GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017 Column No.4 of the inquest report disclose that the Guard by name Shaik Tajuddin had seen the deceased while falling from the train and the report was given by Mohd. A. Rahim. The Tribunal has entirely relied on the report of the Divisional Railway Manager and came to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide and thus, held that the applicants are not entitled for compensation. On perusal of Ex.R-1/the Divisional Railway Manager's report, it can be noticed that one male person committed suicide with head in the middle of the track and trunk lying outside the track. Admittedly, the incident took place on 18.08.2010 but the statements of Khaja Hajibuddin i.e. the Driver of Train No.352 was recorded on 26.04.2011, the statement of Sk.Tajuddin, Guard of the train was recorded on 05.04.2011 and the statement of Ramachandra Prakash Rao, Keyman of Unit No.8 was recorded on 11.04.2011 i.e. after a span of 8 months from the date of incident. All the three persons have noticed the dead body of the deceased, but none of them have seen the deceased alive prior to his death. There is no eye witness to the incident to support the report of DRM that the deceased committed suicide. If at all the statements 8 GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017 of above persons are to be believed, what made the Railway Police to issue FIR under Section 174 Cr.P.C., is not known. For the reasons best known to the Railways, none of its officers including the author of Ex.R-1 report i.e. the Divisional Railway Manager, were examined before the Tribunal. By merely relying on the report of the Divisional Railway Manager, the Tribunal has come to an erroneous conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide and denied compensation to the applicants. The evidence of AW-2 clearly disclose that he accompanied the deceased to Piduguralla Railway Station, where, the deceased purchased II Class journey ticket and in his presence, the deceased boarded the train.
12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo & another v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway1. Para 3 of the said judgment reads as under :
"3. Though rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward 1 2018 ACJ 1460 9 GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017 Incidents) rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') mandates the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident., admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before the RCT on 27.2.2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23.4.2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased detrained from themoving train of D Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railway was accepted by the RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal, i.e., FAO No.535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of the RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same by cryptic and non-speaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award and the reasons assigned in support of the same do not warrant any interference."10
GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017
13. A further reference can be made to the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India v. A. Geetha & others2. Paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment read as under :
"12. The pleadings of the applicants in the original application disclose that Smt. Sandhya was travelling alone in the train. Her bag containing material things including the ticket taken by her for travelling purpose was lost. Her body was found lying in the railway track. It is pertinent to note that even though disclosure of the facts is made in the original application, the respondent has not ventured to controvert those. The respondent has also no case that any enquiry in the matter was conducted by them and the contrary was revealed to them. The only objection raised was regarding the non-pulling of the chain by co-passengers and non-production of the ticket by the claimants. The lady being a passenger not in accompaniment with any of the original applicants, it is difficult for the latter to state specifically about the incident. The attending circumstances being so, the authorities of the Railway, being in reachable space to the place of 2 2018 ACJ 941 11 GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017 incident, are the appropriate person to conduct an enquiry and to get convinced themselves about the untoward incident rather than the original applicants, who were in a remote place at the relevant time. The authorities of the railway cannot take advantage of their inaction to conduct an enquiry and the incapacity of the original applicants to place on record evidence supporting their claim. In the case on hand, the attending circumstances drawn out from the pleadings of the original applicants are leaning in favour of the original applicants rather than those advanced by the respondent.
13. The dictum in the decision supra rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one among us, was a constituent member, is also relevant in the context and is extracted hereinbelow:--
"8. We have considered all the relevant inputs. To us it appears that Chap.13 of the Railways Act reflects the vibrant compassion of the legislature in favour of the victims of untoward incidents that take place during the operation of the Railways. Even though there is no specific liability 12 GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017 known to law on established legal principles obliging the railways to compensate the victim of such untoward incidents, law declares that Railways shall compensate the victims. More than enforcement of a legal right, the statutory provision recognizes compassion and concern which the Railway administration must show to the unfortunate victims of the untoward incidents. An anxious perusal of the relevant statutory provisions and the rules must convince that the framers of the statute and the rules did not reckon the proceedings as an adversarial litigative process at all. If there be any semblance of doubt on this aspect it will be appropriate to frequent oneself with the stipulations of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2007). R.7 to 10 clearly show that the burden is on the local police and the officers of the force to conduct an enquiry/investigation into the cause of the incident and come to appropriate conclusion.
To us it appears that the provisions clearly reveal due recognition and acceptance of the 13 GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017 helplessness of the claimants who may be far far away from the scene/venue of the incident and consequentially incapable of adducing very compelling evidence in support of their claim. The realistic acceptance of the plight of the victims is perfectly clear from the mechanism stipulated for enquiry/investigation under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. The burden really is not placed entirely on the shoulders of the victims or claimants. But, the burden is placed on the shoulders of the Railway and its officials to conduct a proper enquiry to ascertain whether claimants are really entitled to amounts or not."
Both the aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for compensation.
14. Though the appellants have claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- only, as per the Schedule given by the Ministry of Railways vide Notification dated 22nd December, 2016, the 14 GAC, J CMA.No.862 of 2017 Railways are liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of its passengers. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of their son Sri A.Sarat Babu.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 31.01.2017, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II (U) No.343 of 2010, is hereby set aside. The respondent-Railways shall pay the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Out of the said compensation amount, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to half share each.
16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 22.04.2022 ajr