Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1 This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), is filed by the applicant in O.A.II (U) No.220 of 2011 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, challenging the order dated 09.06.2016 where under and whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 16 of the Act was dismissed. 2 For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the O.A. before the Tribunal. The facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in brief, are as follows: 3 On 17.04.2011, one A.Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Goud (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') purchased a train journey ticket bearing No.09275574 in Shadnagar railway station to go to Thimmapur and boarded train No.77672 Mahabubnagar - Kachiguda passenger. While boarding the train, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Shadnagar government hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The applicant, who is the wife of the deceased, filed the application claiming compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs from the respondent. The respondent filed counter denying all the averments made in the application inter alia contending that the applicant planted the ticket bearing No.09275574 with an ulterior motive to claim compensation. The deceased fell down from the train due to his own negligence, therefore, the incident will not fall within the ambit of Clause (c) of Section 123 of the Act i.e. 'untoward incident'. Hence the application is liable to be dismissed. 4 Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

6 Basing on the oral, documentary evidence and other material available on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger and that the deceased himself negligently fell down from the train and consequently dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 09.06.2016, the unsuccessful applicant preferred the present appeal. 7 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the recitals of Ex.A.1-Xerox copy of the journey ticket, Ex.A.3 - FIR and Ex.A.4 - Inquest report and dismissed the application on erroneous grounds. She further submitted that the oral testimony of R.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1, A.3 and A.4 clinchingly establishes that the deceased purchased the original of Ex.A.1 at Shadnagar railway station to go to Thimmapur. She further submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not based on any evidence much less legally admissible evidence, therefore, it is a fit case to allow the appeal.

Point No.1:

10 As seen from the testimony of A.W.1, her husband purchased the ticket bearing No.09275574 at Shadnagar railway station to go to Thimmapur. Ex.A.1 is the Xerox copy of the original ticket. In Column Nos.7 and 15 of the inquest report - Ex.A.4 it is clearly mentioned that the ticket bearing No.09275574 was seized from the pant pocket of the deceased. The respondent is also not disputing the genuineness of Ex.A.4 inquest report. In the inquest panchanama it was clearly mentioned that the ticket bearing No.09275574 was issued by the booking clerk at Shadnagar railway station. The oral testimony of A.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1, A.3 and A.4 clinchingly establishes that the deceased purchased the ticket bearing No.09275574 on 17.4.2011 at Shadnagar railway station to go to Thimmapur. The respondents have not produced any rebuttal evidence to establish that the ticket bearing No.09275574 was not issued by the booking clerk at Shadnagar railway station on 17.4.2011. The respondents have taken a specific plea in the written statement that the applicant planted the ticket. Mere taking of plea that itself is not sufficient to prove the stand of the respondents. The testimony of R.W.1 is no way helpful to the respondents to establish that the ticket is a planted one. If really the ticket bearing No.09275574 was planted one, how the ticket was seized from the pant pocket of the deceased at the time of inquest was not explained by the respondents. This itself clearly indicates that the deceased purchased the ticket bearing No.09275574. The Tribunal made an observation that the applicant planted Ex.A.1 in view of non production of original ticket. The Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the original ticket was seized form the deceased at the time of inquest. The material available on record clinchingly establishes that the deceased is a bona fide passenger. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is based on assumptions and presumptions. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect is not sustainable on facts in view of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 11 In Union of India vs. Rina Devi1 the Hon'ble apex Court held at para No.29 as follows:

1

2018 SCC Online SC 507 12 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the case cited supra, I have no hesitation to hold that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Hence the point No.1 is answered in favour of the applicant and against the respondent.

Point No.2:

13 As seen from the testimony of A.W.1 and R.W.1, the deceased fell down from the train at Shadnagar railway platform and sustained injuries. As seen from the testimony of R.W.1 immediately after the incident, the deceased was shifted to Shadnagar government hospital in 108 ambulance. Their testimony further reveals that the deceased died on 17.4.2011 while undergoing treatment. A perusal of the message of the Station Manager -Ex.A.2, A.3 - FIR, A.4 - inquest report and A.5 - post-mortem examination report, the deceased died due to the injuries by falling from the train. The factum of death of the deceased is not disputed by the respondent.