THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.109 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the dismissal Order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), in OA II(U) No.381 of 2013, dated 15.11.2018, the applicants have preferred the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 15.09.2008 the deceased-Jamas Sangala (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased') who is resident of Chandrapur, Maharastra State with intend to go to his sister's house at Kazipet to attend some ceremony having purchased journey ticket to travel from Ballarshah to Kazipet and boarded 324 Ramagiri passenger train, and accidentally had fallen down near Vihirgaon railway station and succumbed to injuries. The Railway Police, Wardha station registered a case in crime No.71 of 2008. Therefore, the applicants filed the application against the respondent-Railways seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs.
4. The respondent-Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the application and contended that since the applicants are residents of Maharashtra State, Railway Police 2 MGP,J Cma_109_2019 Station, Wardha registered the crime No.71 of 2008 and the incident took place near Vihirgaon Railway station, and no journey ticket was recovered, the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction. It is further contended that there is no eyewitness to the incident as well as purchasing of journey ticket and travel undertaken by the deceased. So, he was not a bona fide passenger. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?
2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?
3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of respondent- railways, no witness was examined, however, Ex.R1 was marked.
7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, has dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/applicants have filed the present appeal.
8. Heard Sri S.Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways and perused the record.
3 MGP,J
Cma_109_2019
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that though the applicants proved their case by examining AW.1 and relying on the documents under Exs.A.1 to A9, the tribunal without considering the same, has erroneously dismissed the application on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by awarding the just and reasonable compensation.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Railways submitted that the Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, has rightly dismissed the application. Hence, interference of this Court is not necessary.
11. In view of the rival contentions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the entire material available on record. It is pertinent to state that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Railways contended that the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction as the applicants are native of Maharastra, the case was registered at Wardah and the incident took place near Vihirgaon railway station which falls within the State of Maharastra.
12. As per Rule 8 of The Railways Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, an application for compensation payable under Section 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 may be filed before the 4 MGP,J Cma_109_2019 bench that has territorial jurisdiction over the place from which the passenger obtains or purchases his pass or ticket or where the accident or untoward incident occurs or where the place of destination lies or where the claimant/deceased normally resides.
13. In the instant case, the destination of the deceased as per the applicants is Kazipet, which is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain the present claim petition.
14. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124- A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident where under a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.
5 MGP,J
Cma_109_2019
15. In order to prove their case, the applicant No.1 who is wife of the deceased was examined as AW.1 and has reiterated the averments of the application and further deposed that, on 15.9.2008 at about 10-00 A.M. her deceased husband left the house from Chandrapur to attend the 11th day death ceremony of late Sukkapala, who is her sister's sister in law and informed that he would go to Ballarshah and from there he would go to Kazipet in any passenger train. On the same day in the evening hours she tried to contact her husband but she could not get any response and on enquiry, her sister at Kazipet, she came to know that her husband did not reach Kazipet. She started searching her husband in their relatives house as well as the friends of her deceased husband and gave complaint to the police. After one month, her neighbours informed that one person aged about 30 years accidentally fallen down from a passenger train near Vihirigaon on 15.9.2008 and received grievous injuries and died and also stated that the Ballarsha railway police conducted enquiry in the above said matter. After knowing the same, she along with the brother of the deceased and others rushed to Ballarshah, contacted the railway police, who informed that on 15.9.2008 one person aged about 30 years accidentally fallen down from train No.324 near Vihirigaon and received grievous injuries. He was brought to Ballarshah and given treatment, but he died. The police further 6 MGP,J Cma_109_2019 informed that because they could not identify the deceased, they buried the dead body with Government expenditure and showed the photos of deceased and a damaged Reliance mobile phone, one rold gold chain and two rold gold rings and a watch belong to deceased. Then she identified and came to the conclusion that her husband fallen down from train No.324 on 15.9.2008 at Vihirigaon. In support of their case, Exs.A1 to A9 documents are filed.
16. Ex.A1 First Information Report, Ex.A2 Mourge report, Ex.A3 inquest report and Ex.A4 spot panchanama discloses that a person aged about 30 years has fallen from the train and sustained grievous injuries and he died due to injuries. According to Ex.A5 postmortem examination, the cause of death is 'cardio respiratory failure due to hemorrhagic shock'. According to Ex.A6 final report and Ex.A7 death certificate, the name of the deceased is 'Shri Jamas Durgadas Sangala'.
17. Admittedly, nobody has seen the deceased purchasing the ticket to go to Ballarsha nor boarded the train on the date of incident. Nobody witnessed while he was falling down from the train. Further no journey ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased. Thus, the applicants failed to discharge their initial burden of proving that the deceased purchased the ticket and boarded the train on the date of incident. Therefore, the deceased 7 MGP,J Cma_109_2019 cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger and as such, the applicants are not entitled for compensation. In Ex.R1 Divisional Railway Manager's report also, it is mentioned that the deceased was not having any railway ticket or authority for his journey. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and the appeal is devoid of merits. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 07.11.2023 pgp