THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.896 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the dismissal Order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), in OAA No.564 of 2006, dated 07.04.2011, the applicant Nos.2 and 3 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 6.3.2006 the deceased- Rayapati Masthan Saheb (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased') purchased a ticket, boarded a train and was traveling to Tirupathi to meet a friend and was standing by the door since the train was crowded and due to jerks and jolts of the train, he fell down and died between Pullampet and Obuvaripalli station at KM No.192/4-1. The ticket was stated to be lost in the accident. Therefore, the applicants have 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 just because a body was found at KM 192/4-1 on 7.3.2006, it did not presuppose that the person had fallen from a train and that the applicants not 2 MGP,J Cma_896_2012 mentioned the train number from which the deceased fell or the ticket number. It is further contended that the postmortem was conducted at 4-00 p.m. on 8.3.2006 estimated the time of death as 2 to 3 days earlier which meant that the death would be in between 4-00 p.m. on 5.3.2006 to 6.3.2006 and not later. So, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the alleged incident if any was caused by self inflicted injuries by his own criminal acts. The applicant as a daughter in law was not eligible for compensation under the Railways Act. 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 traveling from Rajampet to Tirupathi on 6.3.2006?
3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train?
4. To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of respondent-railways, RW.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.
7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, has dismissed the application. Aggrieved by 3 MGP,J Cma_896_2012 the same, the appellants/applicant Nos.2 and 3 have filed the present appeal.
8. Heard Sri Y.Koteswar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K.Arvind Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways and perused the record.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that though the applicants proved their case by examining AWs.1 and 2 and relying on the documents under Exs.A.1 to A6, the tribunal without considering the same, has erroneously dismissed the application. 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. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner is sustainable under law? POINT:
12. This Court has perused the entire material available on record. Firstly the application was filed by the applicant No.1 who is the daughter in law of the deceased. Later she filed a petition to 4 MGP,J Cma_896_2012 add her husband who is the son of the deceased and daughter of the deceased and as there was no counter from the respondent despite an opportunity was given, the petition was allowed and they were added as applicant Nos.2 and 3. Applicant No.1 who is daughter in law of the deceased was examined as AW.1 and has reiterated the averments of the application. She further deposed that on 6.3.2006 the deceased went to Rajampet RS and purchased journey ticket for Rs.15/- from Rajampet to Tirupathi for passenger train No.207 and during his journey, he stood near the door. Due to heavy rush in the compartment when the train reached near Pallampet due to sudden jerks and jolts, the deceased fell down and died at KM 192/4-1. In the cross-examination she admitted that she is not an eyewitness to the incident.
13. AW.2 Y.Ravi Kumar deposed that on 5.3.2006 one of his relative came to his house from Tirupathi by name Mr.K.Ram Chandraiah. On 6.3.2006 he returns to Tirupathi. His relative Ramachandraiah purchased ticket from Rajampet to Tirupathi. By the time of purchasing ticket, Mastan Saheb-one of his village people is also in "que". On enquiry, he informed that he is going to Tirupathi to meet his friend. After second day he came to know that Mastan Saheb fell down from train during his journey. He informed the same to his family members. In the cross-examination he 5 MGP,J Cma_896_2012 stated that he saw the ticket of the deceased. Except the same, nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony.
14. Further Ex.A1 F.I.R. discloses that on finding of one male dead body by the railway staff, a case in crime No. 20 of 2006 was registered by the Railway Police. During investigation, Ex.A2 inquest report was conducted and the panchayatdars opined that the deceased was travelling in a train and was fell down from the train accidentally and due to head injury and due to heavy bleeding, he was expired. The voter ID card of the deceased was available but no journey ticket was available with the deceased. Further Ex.A3 postmortem examination also reveals that the death of the deceased was due to cardio respiratory failure due to head injury and the time of death was about 2 to 3 days prior to postmortem examination.
14. At this juncture, reliance can be placed in Rina Devi v. Union of India 1, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:
"We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572 6 MGP,J Cma_896_2012 not negative the claim that he was a bona fide 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. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
14.1 In the instant case, the applicants have filed affidavits of AWs.1 and 2 along with the documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A1 to A6 and thus, they have discharged their initial burden. Accordingly, the burden shifts on to the respondent-railways to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
16. On behalf of the respondent-Railways, RW.1 was examined. His evidence is helpful to the limited extent that the dead body was found during his duty hours and that he informed the GRP about the same. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the respondent- Railways. Further the Railways did not conduct any enquiry and did not file Divisional Railway Manager's report in support of their contention. Admittedly, the journey ticket was not found along with the deceased. Merely because the deceased was not possessing journey ticket, it cannot be said that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident in the absence of D.R.M. Report. Thus, following the above decision of the Apex Court, the contention of the learned 7 MGP,J Cma_896_2012 counsel for the respondent-railways that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is unsustainable. Hence, the applicants are entitled for compensation.
17. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016, the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicants w.e.f. 1.1.2017 is Rs.8 lakhs. Thus, the applicants are entitled for Rs.8,00,000/-. As per Sec.123 of the Railways Act, daughter-in-law is not the dependant. Hence, applicant No.1 who is the daughter in law of the deceased is not entitled for compensation. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are son and daughter of the deceased. Therefore, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are only entitled for compensation.
18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, in OAA No.564 of 2006 dated 07.04.2011 is set aside. Consequently claim application is allowed in part by awarding the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the applicant Nos.2 and 3 only. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled in equal shares. 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 applicant Nos.2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation awarded to them 8 MGP,J Cma_896_2012 without furnishing any security. The claim application against the applicant No.1 shall stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 17.11.2023 PGP/AS