Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G. Sambireddy vs Union Of India on 8 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY
/'
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE : :
PRESENT
HONOURABLE DRJUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
I.A. N0.1 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 77 OF 2019
Between:
1. G.Sambireddy, S/o.Gurava Reddy, aged about 50 years, Occ:
Agriculture, H.No.1-46, Gudibanda Varipalem, Kolipara, Guntur
District.
2. G.Sivanageswari, W/o.G.Sambireddy, aged about 40 years, Occ:
Housewife, H.No.1-46, Gudibanda Varipalem, Kolipara, Guntur
District.
... Petitioners
AND
Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway,
Secunderabad.
...Respondent
Petition filed under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to post the matter under the caption "For BEING
MENTIONED" to review the Para No. 19 in the Judgment dated 19-12-2023
in CMA No.77 of 2019 by awarding the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- or
Rs.4,00,000/- with 9% interest from the date of accident till realisation
instead of Rs.6,00,000/- of the Judgment passed by this Court.
Counsel for the Petitioners : Smt Geetha Madhuri N S
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar
Central Government Counsel)
The Court made the following ORDER:
This application is filed to post the matter under the caption "for being
mentioned" to review the para No. 19 in the Judgment dated 19.12.2023
passed in C.M.A No.77 of 2019.
2. Considering the submissions and for the reasons stated in the
accompanying affidavit filed in support of this application, I.A No.1 of 2025 is
Allowed and the operative portion of the order passed by this Court dated
19.12.2023 in C.M.A.No.77 of 2019 is modified as under:
"19. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment dated 22.01.2019 passed in OA/ll/u7 of 2009 by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur is hereby set aside. The
appellants are awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs
only) with interest 9% interest from the date of accident till the date of
realisation. The respondent. Union of India, is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within a period of two (02) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted
to withdraw the deposited amount, in terms of the award, without furnishing
any security. There shall be no order as to costs".
3. Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the said order
and issue revised/amended copy of the order to the learned counsels.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SE OFFICER
To,
1. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench, at Guntur.
2. One CC to Smt Geetha Madhuri N S, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, (Central Government
Counsel) [OPUC]
4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
5. Three CD Copies
BSV
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/05/2025
ORDER
lA No.1 OF 2025 in CIVIA.No.77 OF 2019 s 2 7 MAY 2025 %^eSPATCVV€gj^ ALLOWING THE lA No.1 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 77 OF 2019 Appeal filed Under Section 23 of Railway Tribunal Act against Judgment dated 22-01-2019 passed in O.A.II (U) No. 07 of 2009 on the file of the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench at Guntur.
Between:
1. G. Sambireddy, S/o Gaurav Reddy, Aged about 50 years, R/o H.No.1- 46, Gudibanda Varipalem, Kolipara (M), Guntur District.
2. Gudibanddi Sivanageswari, W/o Sambi Reddy, Aged about 40 years, R/o D.No.1-46, Gudibandi Varipalem, Kolipara (M), Guntur District.
...Appellant/Applicant AND Union of India, Rep. by its, the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V. HEMANTH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT IHE HON^BLE DR.TUSTfCE K. MANMADHA RAO Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.77 nf7,niq lUDGMENT-
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants against the Judgment 22.01.2019 passed in 0.A.II(;U}No.07 of 2009, on the file of the Hon hie Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi bench.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an application has been filed by the appellants/claimants, vide O.A.Il[U)No.07 of 2009, on the file of the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi bench (for short "the Tribunal"), under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railway Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-w ith interest for the death of their Son by name Gudibanda Venu Madhava Reddy, (herein after referred to as "the deceased") in an alleged untoward accident that occurred on 09.08.2007.
3. The claim of the appellants is that the deceased purchased a second class train journey ticket from Nandyal to Guntur by Amaravati Express in Nandyal Railway Station. While travelling, due to rush, he was forced to stand near door and during journey at Km 232/9 - 233/0, he fell down and died on the spot. The train journey ticket is alleged to have been lost in the accident.
4. The respondent filed Written Statement and denied all the allegati ons made in the petition. It is stated that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger since no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased or found at the place of at the accident. It was further contended that it was not an accidental fall from the 2 train and the death is on account of some other cause and therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. Based on pleadings raised; the following issues were framed, which reads as under:
Whether the application is maintainable?
11.
Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? iii. Whether the deceased was bonafide passenger of the train Amaravati Express while travelling from Nandyal to Guntur on 09.08.2007, whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? IV.
Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application?
6. Considering 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 is filed.
7. Heard SmtN.S.Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel, representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent.
8. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of Tribunal is contrary to law to facts of the case and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. She further submits that the Tribunal erroneously appreciated the applicability of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railway Act, to the present case. She also submits that initially burden lies in the deceased to show that deceases was travelling with valid journey ticket and only on the discharge of said onus by the appellant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to show that she was not a bonafide passenger. She further submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the death of the Deceased does not fall under the definition of "Untoward Incident".
39. To support her contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh reported in i:
Suman Sharma v. Union of India^, wherein it was held that Merely because there has been no recovery, as such, of any ticket from the body of the deceased, would not be a ground to deny the beneift of the no fault liability, which is to be paid on account of the untoward incident, under Section 124. The statement of the appellant would go on to show that her husband was shuttling between Ambala and Parwanoo and therefore, presumption would arise that if he was using the facilities of Railways for travelling from Kalka which is well connected with Ambala. He would be using a ticket or a pass and therefore, would normally travel alone, in pursuance of his duties assigned to him, as per his employer and in search of his professional work. The appellant-wife could not, in such circumstances, depose regarding the details of travel with a valid ticket and details of such journey, thus, could not have been given by the appellant-wife being stationed200 kms away at Hamirpur.
5 of 14 The onus would fall to this extent upon the Railways that he was not a traveller on the train and had fallen down and thus, was a victim of untoward incident, which aspect had also been recorded by the Tribunal.
Merely because no ticket was found from his body would not, as such, mean that the dependents are not entitled for the compensation. The Railways authorities would be under an obligation to check the passengers, especially in case of an inter-state travel of a long distance as it would not be expected that the deceased would be travelling between Kalka to Ambala, which is at a distance of 60 kms. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the provisions of Section 124-A are in a form of no fault liability, the Railways would be liable to pay compensation on account of the untoward incident Admittedly, the Railways had not been able to prove that the case fell within the exceptions which fall under Section 124A whereby no compensation is to be paid by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to suicide or attempted suicide by him; self-inflicted injury; his own criminal act; any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity.
In such circumstances, ticketless travel is an illegal act and therefore, it was further for the Railway authorities to check and detect any unauthorized person travelling without an authorized ticket and a presumption would arise in favour of the appellant that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket from Ambala to Kalka and had covered majority of the distance before he fell from the train when it had crossed the Chandimandir Railway Station around 10 pm. The onus, thus, should have been shifted upon the Railways, to prove that he was a trespasser, as such and was travelling without a ticket and not a bona ifde passenger and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition of the claimant and the impugned order is, accordingly, not liable to be sustained.
In similar circumstances, in Union of India Vs. Smt Suman 2013 (2) PLR 28, the appeal of the Railways was dismissed, wherein the claim was that the 2018 ACJ 2849 4 ticket purchased was lost during the incident Accordingly, it has been held that the deceased wos a bona ifde passenger and there was a burden upon the Railways that whether he was travelling without ticket. Reliance had been placed upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Maniben PaIJibhai Parmarv. Union of India 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 255.
The Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya 8 of 14 Kumar & others 2008 (9) SCC 527, has noticed the aspect of the provisions being a beneifcial piece of legislation. The said view was followed in the case of Jameela & others Vs. Union of India 2010 (12) SCC 443, wherein a person who had fallen down from a open door compartment, was held to be covered, as such, under the provisions of Section 124-A, as it may be a rash and negligent act to stand next to the door but it is certainly not a criminal act In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in CA-5608-2017 titled Kalandi Charan Sahoo & another Vs. General Manager, South- East Central Railways, Bilaspur, decided on 25.04.2017, on account of a proper enquiry not having been held under Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, the appellants were held entitled to compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, to the tune of Rs. 4 lakhs. It had also been noticed that the enquiry was conducted only after the claim petition had been ifled before the Railways Claims Tribunal, which is also the case in the present case, since the enquiry herein also was conducted on 08.10.2009, whereas the petition had been fled on 08.10.2008. In the above-referred case, the deceased had fallen down from a running train at the D. Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident
10. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kamukayi and others versus Union of India and others2and also in a case of UOI versus Rina Devi^, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the initial burden that the deceased shifting onus on the Railway Administration to disprove the said fact.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants while relying on the above citations submits that in absence of any cogent evidence, not withstanding anything contained in any other law, the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed.
^ Civil Appeal No.3799 of2023 ^ http:// https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94898543/ 5
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the deceased was not a bonfide passenger since no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased or found at the place of at the accident. It was further contended that as per the DRM report, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger within the meaning of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and the reason of his falling down from the train and succumbing to the injuries is on account of his own negligence and no way the railway authority is responsible for his death. He also submits that there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. He further submits that the track inspections were also conducted where the deceased had travelled and the outcome of the report says that no jerks and jolts were found as alleged by the appellants/claimants and therefore, the respondent authority is not liable to pay any compensation.
13. On perusing the entire material available on record, this Court observed that, the appellants/claimants in their claim stated that the deceased purchased a second class train journey ticket from Nandyal to Guntur by Amaravati Express in Nandyal Railway Station. While travelling, due to rush, he was forced to stand near door and during journey at Km 232/9 - 233/0, he fell down and died on the spot. The train journey ticket is alleged to have been lost in the accident.
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 report in Rina Devi's case (supra 3] 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 6 • injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was 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 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; (ni) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependent on the deceased passenger;
(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependent on the deceased passenger. [(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 bonafide 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. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that as per the inspection report conducted on where the deceased had travelled, as per the outcome there are no jerks or jolts were found and as per the railway record, no ticket was issued on 09.08.2007 for train 7 No.2849 express train and the same was also certified by the Station Manager. Due to the said reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
17. In the light of Judgment of UOI v. Radha Yadav4wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "because death is proved due to outcome of untoward incident of the deceased being a bona ifde passenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded."
18.
In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the material available on record, it is observed that the respondent has failed to establish that whether the deceased is a bonafide 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 opinion that while setting aside the impugned judgment, inclined to allow the present appeal.
19. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.01.2019 passed in OA/II/U7 of 2009 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench, Guntur is hereby set aside. The appellants are awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) with interest 9% interest from the date of accident till the date of realization. The respondent, Union of India, is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount in equal shares, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
'*(2019)3 see 410 8 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- P VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTi^^FICER
1. The Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, At Guntur, (with records if any)
2. One CC to M/s. Geetha Madhuri N S Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri V. Hemanth Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
5. Three CD copies.
Trt AL sree (XXX) The operative portion of the Order, dated 19.12.2023 in CMA No.77 of 2019 is amended as per the Order of this Court dated 31.12.2024 made in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in CMA No.77 of 2019.
Sd/- P VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR (XXX) The operative portion of the Amended Order, dated 31.12.2024 in CMA No.77 of 2019 is amended as per the Order of this Court dated 08.05.2025 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in CMA No.77 of 2019.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR HIGH COURT DATED:19/12/2023 31/12/2024 08/05/2025 AMENDED JUDGMENT CMA.No.77 of 2019 ALLOWING THE C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO I.A. N0.1 OF 2024 IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 77 OF 2019 Between:
1. G.Sambireddy, S/o Gurava Reddy, aged about 50 years, Occ:
Agriculture, H.No.1-46, Gudibanda Varipalem, Kolipara, Guntur District.
2. G.Sivanageswari, W/o.G.Sambireddy, aged about 40 years, Occ:
Housewife, H.No. 1-46, Gudibanda Varipalem, Kolipara, Guntur District.
... Petitioners AND Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad.
...Respondent Petition filed under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to post the matter under the caption "For BEING MENTIONED" for permission of withdraw in Judgment dated 19-12-2023 passed by this Court in CMA No.77 of 2019.
Counsel for the Petitioners : Smt Geetha Madhuri N S Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar Central Government Counsel) The Court made the following ORDER:
The application is filed to post the matter under the caption "for being mentioned" for permission of withdraw in Judgment dated 19.12.2023 passed in the C.M.A and modify the Judgment.
2. Heard Ms.Geetha Madhuri N S, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in case of 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 exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. Whereas this Court allowed the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
and on Rs.8,00,000/- and with interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing claim till the date of award and thereafter, at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of actual payment, instead of on the amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, since the incident occurred prior to amendment i.e dated 01.01.2017. Whereas, in Kamukyiu and Others v. Union of India and Others the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded interest from the date of application till the date of realization only and there is no further stage of interest awarded from the date of Award to till realization. In view of the same, there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the order of this Court. Hence, review the C.M.A and modify the order in the interest of justice.
4. Perused the Judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed on record the common order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.1074 of 2018, wherein this Court at Para 8 held as follows:
" However, in a subsequent Judgment referred above, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the payment of interest and payment of enhanced compensation, was pleased to observe that:
In case of 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 claim 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".
6. No doubt, there is an error crept with regard to amount awarded by this Court and also interest part in the Judgment inadvertently. Therefore, the claimant/petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- without any interest thereupon.
7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioner, the operative portion of the order passed by this Court dated 19.12.2023 in C.M.A.No.77 of 2019 is modified as under:
"19.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.01.2019 passed in OA/ll/U/7 of 2009 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur, is hereby set aside. The appellants are awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only). The respondent. Union of India, is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount in equal shares, without furnishing any security. No costs".
8. Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the said order and issue revised/amended copy of the order to the learned counsels.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
SD/- P VENKATA RAMANA
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
S ON OFFICER
To,
1. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench, at Guntur.
2. One CC to Smt. Geetha Madhuri N S, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, (Central Government Counsel) [OPUC]
4. Three CD Copies BSV sree (XXX) The name of the applicant No.1 in the cause title of the Order, dated 31-12-2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in CMA No.77/2019, the word "G.Sambireddy (died)" was deleted and added the name of applicant No.1 as "G.Sambireddy, S/o.Gurava Reddy, aged about 50 years, Occ:Agriculture, H.No.1-46, Gudibandivaripalem, Kolipara, Guntur District", as per the Orders of this Court dated 08-05-2025 made in lA No.5 of 2025 in CMA No.77/2019.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR HIGH COURT DATED:31/12/2024 08/05/2025 AMENDED ORDER lA No.1 OF 2024 in CMA.No.77 OF 2019 ALLOWING THE lA No.1 OF 2024