Telangana High Court
Gurrapu Umma Reddy vs The Union Of India on 24 June, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.813 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II (U).No.122 of 2012 dated 20.04.2018.
2. The appellants are the applicants.
3. The facts of the case as narrated in the claim petition are that the deceased G.Srinivas Reddy was the son of the applicants. They were residents of Theegal Pahad Sreerampur, Mancherial Mandal of Adilabad District. The deceased was aged about 19 years. On 19.02.2012, in the early morning hours, he went to his sister's house at Odela by Bhagyanagar Train and on the same day he started his return journey from the house of his sister by carrying maize. The brother-in-law of the deceased by name T.Narsimha Reddy gave send off to the deceased. T.Narsimha Reddy purchased the return journey ticket on behalf of the deceased. The deceased boarded Singareni Passenger Train No.57123 from Odela to Mancherial. There was heavy rush on that day. On the way in between Peddampet and Mancherial railway stations, the deceased accidentally 2 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 fell down from the running train and hit an electric pole and due to grievous head injury died on the spot.
4. The respondent Railways disputing the claim contended that the claim would not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. The claimants had not produced any journey ticket of the deceased. He might have died for the reasons other than fall from the train. The co-passengers had not pulled the alarm chain and stopped the train. As no such thing happened, the possibility of the deceased falling from the said train was not true. As per the inquest report, there were no valuable articles and journey ticket. Hence, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. As per column Nos.9, 15 and 22 of the inquest report, while travelling in the said train, the deceased stood at the door and hanging with the pipe when the train reached between Peddampet and Mancherial railway stations, due to which his head hit the electric pole at Kilometer No.267 / 1-2 and fell down under the dam of railway track at Anthargaon outskirts. It was purely negligence on the part of the deceased. The alleged journey ticket was not genuine. A detailed enquiry was ordered by the Divisional Railway Manager (for short "DRM") / SC and the enquiry was in progress. In the said circumstances, it was not a case of accidental fall from train, but it was a case of suspicious death. Hence, the application was not maintainable. The alleged accident, if any, was caused by the criminal acts of the deceased and such acts would disentitle the applicants 3 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 from claiming any compensation for such self-inflicted injuries. The applicants were put to strict proof that the case would fall under Section 124-A and Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
5. Basing on the said pleadings, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed the issues as follows:
i) Whether the applicants were dependants 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 applicants were entitled for compensation as claimed and to what relief?
6. The second applicant, the mother of the deceased was examined as AW.1 and the brother-in-law of the deceased was examined as AW.2. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the applicants. No witness was examined for the respondents. The DRM report was marked as Ex.R1.
7. On considering Ex.A6, the Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, dated 30.12.2013 and as no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the respondent to disprove the same, the Tribunal considered the applicants as dependants of the deceased.
8. As the documents filed by the applicants would not reveal that the deceased was holding any train journey ticket, the Tribunal considered that they 4 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. The Tribunal observed that the electric poles would be erected with ample space between the coach and the pole, so that, they would not touch the train. Unless and until the deceased leaned, he could not touch the pole. As such, the death of the deceased could be considered as due to his own negligence. The mother of the deceased also admitted in her cross-examination that there was negligence on the part of her son. As such, the respondent Railways was not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants and dismissed the claim application filed by the applicants.
9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the claim application, the claimants preferred this appeal.
10. Heard Sri S.Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government for the respondent.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial court failed to see that it was an untoward train accident and that the appellants were entitled for compensation. AW.2, the brother-in-law of the deceased, who went to the railway station to give send off to the deceased, stated that he witnessed the purchase of journey ticket by the deceased. The ticket was lost, but the appellants by adducing evidence discharged their burden to prove that the 5 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 deceased was travelling with a valid journey ticket and relied upon the judgments of the High Court of Madras in Maleshwari v. Union of India 1, and of the High Court of Calcutta in Smt. Radha Yadav v. Union of India 2, and of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ramsingh Shekawat and another v. Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad3 and of the judgments of this Court in CMA.No.330 of 2019, dated 13.12.2023, CMA.No.1012 of 2016, dated 17.08.2022 and CMA.No.110 of 2010, dated 14.09.2023.
12. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government for the respondent Railways submitted that the Tribunal after considering all the aspects rightly dismissed the application and no interference of this Court was required.
13. On a perusal of the record, it would reveal that the claimant No.2, the mother of the deceased was examined as AW.1. Admittedly, she was not an eye-witness to the incident. As such, her admission that the untoward incident occurred due to the negligence of her son cannot be relied upon. She admitted that she had not produced the journey ticket from Odela to Mancherial and as per column No.7 of the inquest report, no ticket was found. 1 2022 ACJ 1376 2 Laws (CAL) 2017 3 47 3 2010 (1) ALT 631 (SB) 6 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018
14. The brother-in-law of the deceased was examined as AW.2. He filed his evidence affidavit stating that on 19.02.2012 morning at 08:00 AM, his brother- in-law, the deceased G.Srinivas Reddy came to their house by Bhagyanagar Train for the purpose of taking maize corns and by carrying the same in a bag on the same day, his brother-in-law started return journey. He also went to Odela Railway Station to give send off to his brother-in-law. He himself purchased the journey ticket for his brother-in-law for travelling from Odela to Mancherial. His brother-in-law boarded Singareni Passenger Train No.57123. He was with his brother-in-law till the train left the station. Nothing was elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve the said evidence.
15. Thus, the claimants discharged the initial burden laid upon them that the deceased travelled as a passenger in Singareni Passenger Train No.57123 from Odela to Mancherial.
16. On a perusal of the record, it would reveal that the FIR was registered basing on the message given by the driver of Train No.57123, who reported about a male person fallen down from the train and died at Kilometer No.266 between Peddampet and Mancherial. The inquest report marked under Ex.A2 would reveal that the inquest was conducted in the presence of the complainant Sri M.V.S.Kumar and an eye-witness by name Vilnukuri Ravinder and also in the presence of the claimants as well as the brother-in-law of the deceased and 7 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 the body of the deceased was identified by his blood relatives and that he was aged 19 years and that the driver of the Singareni Passenger Train No.57123 saw the dead body for the first time on 19.02.2012 between Peddampet and Mancherial at Kilometer No.267 / 1 to 3 before 14:25 hours and it was conducted at the place where the dead body was found under the dam of UP line railway track beside the outskirts of Anthargaon Village.
17. The panchas basing on the place of incident, existence of dead body, the injuries caused to the deceased and the statements given by the witnesses, opined that it appeared that the deceased was travelling in the Singareni Passenger Train on 19.02.2012 before 02:40 hours by standing at the door hanging with the pipe and when the train reached Peddampet - Mancherial railway stations and between Kilometer No.267 / 1 to 2 , the head hit the electric pole above the two eye-brows and the shell of the head came out and brain fell down under the pole and the dead body fallen down under the dam of railway track and as such he died in an accident.
18. As per Ex.A4 PME report, the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure due to loss of scalp and brain due to accidental injury to the head.
19. As per the final report filed by the SHO, RPS, Bellampally, on 19.02.2012 morning at about 05:00 hours, the deceased Gurrapu Srinivas Reddy, 8 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 R/o.17-186, KK Huts, Theegal Pahad Sreerampur, Mancherial Mandal of Adilabad District went to the house of his elder sister at Odela (Village and Mandal) of Karimnagar District by Bhagyanagar Train in order to bring maize corn for them. Later after obtaining maize corn from his sister, the deceased boarded in Singareni Train No.57123 at Odela Railway station and on the way when the train was running in between Peddampet and Mancherial railway stations, the deceased hanged to the coach handles at the door and accidentally hit an iron electric pole, which was planted in the ground beside the track, due to which the scalp of the deceased broken, brain matter came out and died on the spot at Kilometer No.266. It was observed that there was no foul play in the cause of death of the deceased. It was a clear case of death due to hit to an electric pole while hanging to the coach handles at the door of Singareni Train No.57123.
20. On behalf of the respondent - Railways, the DRM report was marked as Ex.R1. The said report was dated 14.01.2013 i.e. almost an year after the incident. As per Rule 7(2) of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident Rules), 2003, the investigation has to be completed within 60 days. But the same was not completed within the stipulated period as mandated.
9
Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018
21. The Investigating Officer examined the loco pilot and guard of Train No.57123, but had not examined the claimants or brother-in-law of the deceased, who were also present at the time of the inquest, which would give rise to a suspicion that it was not a fair investigation.
22. As per the evidence of the loco pilot discussed by the DRM, the passengers reported to the loco pilot at Mancherial railway station that after passing Peddampet railway station, a male person fallen down from the train at Kilometer No.266 / 1 to 3. He informed the same to On-duty Deputy SS / MCI on walkie-talkie and gave a written message at Bellampalli and also informed the same to the train guard on walkie-talkie.
23. The guard of train No.57123 examined denied the statement of the loco pilot and stated that he did not have any information about the incident, no one informed him, only after reaching Bellampalli, the loco pilot informed him on walkie-talkie.
24. The DRM concluded that as per the inquest, as it was clearly mentioned that the deceased died due to hit by an electric pole to his head while on run, as such, concluded that it was only by the negligent travelling of the deceased, the incident occurred and he was not having any authority to travel on the train.
25. The DRM report also would reveal that the deceased travelled in the train, but only concluded that it was due to his negligent travelling, the incident 10 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 occurred. As no journey ticket was found with the deceased at the time of inquest, the DRM concluded that the deceased was not authorized to travel on the train.
26. On a perusal of the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellants, the High Court of Madras in Maleshwari v. Union of India (cited supra) held that:
"9. This Court is of opinion that once an untoward incident is established and the death occurred due to falling down from the running train and if the journey ticket was not retrieved, the burden of proof must be shifted on the Railways that the deceased passenger was not a bonafide passenger. However, there is every possibility that the journey ticket would have been lost while the deceased fell down from the running train or while taking the deceased to hospital or for post-mortem or somewhere else.
10. Once the untoward incident is established and the death occurred due to falling down from the running train, then the non- availability of journey ticket cannot alone be a ground to reject the claim petition. In such circumstances, the onus lies on the Railways to establish that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger."11
Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018
27. The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Smt. Radha Yadav v. Union of India (cited supra) by extracting the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar [2008 9 SCC 527], held that:
"10. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court while dealing with section 124-A of the Act held as follows:
"17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.
***
23. Thus, in cases where the principle of strict liability applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the defendant may not have been at any fault."
11. We may at this stage also note the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 12 SCC 443: Jameela v. Union of India, where it has held as follows:
"10. It is not denied by the Railways that M. Hafeez fell 12 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 down from the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a 'passenger' for the purpose of Section 124-A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under Section 124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. But the proviso to the section says that the Railway Administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e)."
12. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the Railways itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124-A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, 13 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favor."
28. In Ramsingh Shekawat and another v. Union of India represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (cited supra), a Single Bench of this Court after extracting Section 124-A and Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, held that:
7. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, reads as hereunder:
"Section 124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incident -- 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 14 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 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 cause by the said untoward incident Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section, "passenger" includes --
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
8. 'Untoward incident' has been defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as hereunder:
"Section 123(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 15 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018
(ii) The making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the including 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".
9. A plain reading of the above referred definition of untoward incident includes an accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. The fact, which are not in dispute, are that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died while traveling in a train bearing No. 2628 New Delhi -- Bangalore Karnataka Express under a valid journey-cum- reservation Ticket No. 78911613. The only issue is whether the fall of the deceased from the train was due to his own criminal act. The Tribunal heavily relied on the evidence of RW2 and Ex. A-5 inquest report. Admittedly, no eye-witness was examined during the inquest. The conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer during the inquest are based on certain observations made by him. The prominent observation being the blood traces on a signal pole. Basing on the blood traces on the signal pole, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the deceased leaned out of the 16 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 compartment and thereby he came into contact with the signal pole and received serious injuries resulting his instantaneous death. RW2 is the Investigating Officer. He admits in the cross- examination that there is possibility of the deceased getting into contact with the signal pole while falling from the train. For better appreciation, I may refer the cross-examination of RW2 in his own words, which reads as hereunder:
"I am not eye-witness to the incident. After receipt of the message from SS/Gooty only 1 went to the spot. I did not examine any eye-witness during the panchanama. There is a possibility that at the time of falling from the train due to the speed hit by post. But in this case I have come to conclusion that in the final report, that he has fallen down due to the hit of the post."
10. By reading the contents of the inquest report, which has been exhibited as Ex. A-5, and the evidence of RW2, the two views are possible. Firstly, the deceased may have slipped from the compartment and came into contact with the signal pole resulting injuries which caused his instantaneous death. Secondly, the deceased may have leaned out of the compartment and thereby come into the contact with the signal pole causing injuries which ultimately lead to 17 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 his instantaneous death. When the two views are possible, basing on the evidence, the view, which is favorable to the applicants, is to be adopted, since the object of the Act is to alleviate the sufferings of the victims or dependants of the victims of untoward incident. The death of the deceased came within the expression of 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' which is an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railway Act, 1989. The Supreme Court in the above referred decision held that since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Para 11 of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus:
"11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece 18 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion, the latter of the abovementioned two interpretation i.e., the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v.
Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9); B.D. Shetty v.
CEAT Limited, 2002 (1) ALD 11 (SC):(2002) 1 SCC 193 (para
12); Transport Corporation of India v. ESI Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc."
11. By applying the above proposition of law, laid down by the Supreme Court in the cited judgment, to the facts of the present case, the view which is favorable to the appellants is to be taken into consideration, in which case the appellants/applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakhs as claimed by them.
29. The facts of the above case are similar to the facts of the present case. The death of the deceased would come within the expression of "accidental fall of a passenger from a train", which is an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
19
Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018
30. The respondent Railways failed to examine the driver of Train No.57123 by name M.V.S.Kumar examined before DRM, before the Tribunal. No rebuttal evidence was adduced to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Not having a journey ticket alone cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petition, as per the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellants, which were extracted above.
31. As such, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had committed an error in not considering the claim petition on the ground of non-retrieval of the journey ticket and observing that the initial burden was not discharged by the claimants. As such, the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II.U.No.122 of 2012 is set aside allowing the C.M.A.
32. Coming to the compensation, in case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment in 2013, the prevailing basic figure in respect of death case was Rs.4.00 lakhs. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Radha Yadav4, held that:
10. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Devi [2018 ACJ 1441 (SC)] is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of 4 (2004) 2 SCC 1 20 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 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. 21
Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018
33. The applicants are entitled for interest @ 7 % per annum on the compensation amount as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamukayi v. Union of India 5.
34. From the date of accident i.e. 19.02.2012 to the date of judgment i.e. 24.06.2024, the applicants are entitled for interest for 12 years 4 months 5 days = 149 months 5 days. The interest calculated for 12 years 4 months 5 days at the rate of 7% works out to Rs.3,45,716/-. Therefore, the interest along with the compensation amount, to which the applicants are entitled prevailing at the time of the accident, comes to Rs.7,45,716/- (Rs.4,00,000/- + Rs.3,45,716/-).
35. However, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Radha Yadav's Case (cited supra) if, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure was less than Rs.8.00 lakhs, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.8.00 lakhs. As such, the applicants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs.
36. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II.(U).No.122 of 2012 dated 20.04.2018. The applicants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The respondent Railways is directed to 5 Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023 dated 16.05.2023 22 Dr.GRR, J cma_813_2018 deposit the awarded amount within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench and on such deposit made, the appellants are entitled to equal share and they are permitted to withdraw the awarded amount by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date: 24th June, 2024.
Nsk.