Telangana High Court
Yanus Sekh, vs The Union Of India Through General ... on 18 December, 2023
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.100 of 2017
JUDGMENT:-
1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 27.09.2016 passed in O.A.II(U).No.458 of 2008, on the file of learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, the Tribunal), the present appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants, who are the parents of the deceased, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the deceased along with his co-workers by name Sariful Mondal and Pintoo Mondal came to Chennai Railway Station on 02.10.2008 at about 10.00 AM with a view to go to his native place and purchased one superfast ticket from Chennai Central to Howrah and boarded the train No.2842 Coramondel Express into a general compartment. When the said train was passing between Tada/Sullurupeta Railway Station, he had accidentally slipped and fallen down from the train due to the speed and jerks of the train and also due to heavy rush. He sustained serious injuries 2 MGP,J CMA.No.100 of 2017 and died. It is further contended by the applicants that the deceased was aged 20 years and was working as a Labourer.
4. The respondent-Railways filed its counter denying the averments of the claim application and stated that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger and therefore, the Railways do not owe any responsibility to pay compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Even if the accident had happened, they failed to examine the eye witness and further, the applicants have not stated that there was a chain pulling after his fall from the train and that the applicants have to prove that the alleged falling is not suicide attempt or self-inflicted injury or his own criminal act or any act committed by the deceased in a state of intoxication or insanity, failing which the application is not maintainable as per law and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim application.
5. Before the Tribunal, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 and also got examined AW2, who is a co-worker of the deceased and got marked Exs.A1 to A11.
6. On behalf of the respondent-Railways, no witness was examined and no documents are marked.
3
MGP,J CMA.No.100 of 2017
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, dismissed the claim application.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is preferred by the appellants/applicants.
9. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Railways.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that though the applicants have proved their case by adducing cogent evidence and also relying upon documents under Exs.A1 to A11, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, has erroneously dismissed the claim application.
11. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for respondent- Railways argued that the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the claim petition.
12. Now the point for determination is Whether the applications are entitled for compensation? POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents filed on both sides. The father of the deceased, who 4 MGP,J CMA.No.100 of 2017 was examined as AW1, has reiterated the contents of the claim application and also got examined AW2, who is a co-worker of the deceased. Both the witnesses are not the eye witnesses to the incident. However, AW2 in his evidence has stated that he has accompanied the deceased to the railway station and also witnessed the deceased purchasing railway ticket and boarding the train and later came to know about the death of the deceased through the father of the deceased. Though AWs1 & 2 are cross-examined at length, nothing worthy was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
14. This Court has perused Exs.A1 to A11. Ex.A1 is the FIR registered based on the information received from Deputy Station Superintendent, Gudur Railway Station that one male dead body aged about 55 years, was found at KM.76/12-14 by the rails of DN line between Tada -SPE. Hence, registered the above death message as case in Crime No.88 of 2008 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. of Gudur Railway Police Station and submitted the original death information to the concerned Court and investigation has been taken up. Ex.A2-Inquest report discloses that inquest panchayatdars have opined that as per the information and scene of offence and also the position of the dead body, it appears that the deceased is aged about 20 years 5 MGP,J CMA.No.100 of 2017 as per the Identity Card available from the pocket of the deceased which was issued by Government of India, ISRO Department of Space Station. The details of the deceased and phone numbers were also elicited. One journey ticket from Sullurupeta to Chennai vide ticket No.395802090, dated 30.09.2008 was found from the possession of the dead body. Based on the same, they opined that the deceased while travelling in some unknown train going on down line, slipped and fallen down from the train by sustaining serious injuries and died. the postmortem examination report also reveals that the deceased died due to head injury and multiple fractures and Ex.A4-Death Certificate was issued stating that the deceased died on 04.10.2008. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute that the deceased dead body was found at KM.76/12-14 by the rails of DN line between Tada -SPE and the inquest report also supports the same. The main contention of the learned counsel for Railways is that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that as per the inquest report, the panchayatdars have found one piece of paper and also one journey ticket from the possession of the deceased which is dated 30.09.2008. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased is not in possession of any journey 6 MGP,J CMA.No.100 of 2017 ticket and he is not a bonafide passenger. Even as per the evidence of AW2, it is clear that the deceased has purchased journey ticket and boarded the train in General Compartment and died in an untoward incident. It is not the case of the respondent-Railways that the ticket was planted by any of the family members for the reason that the dead body was found in a decomposed state and further the family members are not aware of the incident immediately and they came to know through the railway police after inquest and post mortem examination. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for railways that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger and no untoward incident was happened is unsustainable. When the applicants have discharged their initial burden, it is for the respondent/Railways to discharge the onus. However, the railways have failed to file the DRM report nor adduced any kind of evidence to disprove the evidence adduced by the applicants.
15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal had erroneously dismissed the claim application despite the applicants have discharged their initial burden. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the 7 MGP,J CMA.No.100 of 2017 finding given by the leaned Tribunal. Hence, the applicants are entitled for compensation.
16. Coming to the quantum of compensation, in case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment i.e., on 26.01.2014, the prevailing basic figure in respect of death case was Rs.4.00 lakhs, which has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.8.00 lakhs as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for death of the deceased.
17. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order dated 27.09.2016 passed in O.A.II(U).No.458 of 2008, on the file of learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, is set aside and the applicants are granted compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The respondent-Railways is directed to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the applicants are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. 8
MGP,J CMA.No.100 of 2017
18. Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.18.12.2023 ysk