Telangana High Court
Sheak Teak Saheb, Prakasam Dist And ... vs Union Of India, Secunderabad on 13 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.694 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for short 'Act') aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.01.2017 in OA.II (U).No.122 of 2010 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest for death of one Masthan (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), was dismissed by the Tribunal.
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 of the applicants are that the deceased along with his friends Bala Brahmaiah and Pratap Reddy had went to Kadapa Railway Station and purchased three individual journey tickets from Kadapa to Kurnool and after some time boarded into train No.7651 Chennai Egmore/Kacheguda Express into a general compartment. The said compartment was 2 MGP,J CMA_694_2017 heavily crowded and hence they were sitting at different places. When the train was passing between Muddanur/Mangapatnam railway stations, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fallen down from the said train on 02.06.2010 night and sustained serious injuries and died subsequently. The applicants are parents of the deceased and sudden death of the deceased devastated them both mentally and financially. Hence, the present claim application is filed seeking compensation for the death of the deceased.
4. The respondent railways filed written statement along with the report of the Divisional Railway Manager (for short 'DRM'), wherein it is contended that the applicants have not filed proper documentary proof regarding the Death Certificate of the deceased and denied the averments of the applicants and also contended that there is no cause of action for applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section123(C) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It is further contended that the applicants have stated in the claim petition that the deceased was travelling along with his two friends but none of them have reported the incident either to the guard of the train No.7651 express of 02.06.2010 nor to the Station Master of Muddanur and 3 MGP,J CMA_694_2017 Mangapatnam. The GRP have not examined any eye-witness. As per inquest report the dead body is in decomposed condition would indicate that he might have died long back due to some other reasons. The applicants have not produced the PME report nor the final report of the GRP to suppress the real cause of death of the deceased. The ticket produced by the applicant is a planted ticket therefore, the deceased cannot be treated as bonafide passenger and prayed to dismiss the claim application.
5. The applicants, in order to substantiate their claim, examined applicant No.1 as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.R-1 was marked.
6. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has dismissed the claim application of the applicants. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
7. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants as well as the learned Standing counsel for the respondent-Railways and perused the entire record.
4
MGP,J CMA_694_2017
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants is that they have proved their case by discharging their initial burden by examining A.W.1 and also by relying upon the documents under Exs.A-1 to A-10, but the Tribunal without considering the same has erred in dismissing the claim petition. The appellants claimed that the finding of the Tribunal that deceased was not a bonafide passenger is a gross error. It is also contended by the applicant that the Tribunal erred in contending that in the absence of witness on behalf of the respondent-railways, the conclusion arrived is against the law. Therefore prayed to set-aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal and award a reasonable compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a train accident.
9. 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.]
10. Now the point for consideration is as follows:-
"Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed for?"5
MGP,J CMA_694_2017
11. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents filed on both sides. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the deceased and the applicants. The only dispute as contended by the learned counsel for respondent- Railways is that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger as the ticket produced by the applicant is a planted ticket. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that Ex.A1-Copy of FIR reveals that on 03.06.2010, when the Deputy Station Manager of Yerraguntla Railway Station was on his duty at about 14.20 hours, one prabhakar, Railway Gang Keyman informed him that he found a male dead body lying on the upline railway track at KM.No.322/9- 0 between Muddanur-Mangapatnam railway stations. He entered the same as a death message and sent it to GRP/YA. Further, the opinion expressed by the panchayatdars, who conducted inquest under Ex.A2 shows that deceased was travelling in Train No.7651 Egmore to Kacheguda express in general compartment along with his friends and he was last seen alive by Bala Brahmaiah, who accompanied the deceased while travelling. The inquest report further reveals regarding the articles found with the deceased except a driving license containing name and phone number no other items were found with the deceased including the ticket. But at the end of the para 7 the details of ticket No.57521899 from 6 MGP,J CMA_694_2017 Kadapa to Kurnool for Rs.67/- by Egmore Express dated 02.06.2010 is inserted to establish that the deceased was in possession of train journey ticket under Ex.A.3. Further, the post mortem examination under Ex.A.4 also reveals that the deceased died of massive subdural Haemorrhage due to injury sustained in the head as a result of accidental fall from a train. Hence, with the above documents it is established that the deceased died due to accidental fall from a train which resulted in an untoward incident. Further, it is also pertinent to mention that it is highly difficult for a person to travel long distance without a ticket. Therefore, it shall be deemed that he was having a valid ticket (Ex.A.3) and thereby, he was a bonafide passenger. There was no foul play suspected in the death of deceased. Therefore, it is clear that the appellants have established that the deceased, while travelling in the train, had accidentally fallen down from the moving train and died in an untoward incident. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, that no untoward incident has occurred, is not sustainable.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a Judgment reported in Suman Sharma Vs.Union of India 1 1 2018 ACJ 2849 7 MGP,J CMA_694_2017 wherein it was held that mere absence of ticket on the body of the deceased would not disentitle the appellants to claim compensation, in the absence of any such proof that he had committed suicide or was intoxicated, as such, to fall within the exceptions under Section 124-A and could not be held to be a trespasser in the railway train.
13. Moreover, in Shaik Mahboob Basha and others v. Union of India 2, wherein the Single Judge of this Court held as follows:
"As rightly contended it is undisputed that a person will not be permitted even onto the platform without a platform ticket and that a person will not be permitted to travel in a train without a valid ticket with him and that a duty is enjoined upon the officers of the Railways to regulate the entry of passengers to the platform or into the railway station and into the compartments of trains and that the Railways have sufficient mechanism and manpower to regulate the same. Therefore, it can be presumed that every person entering into onto the platform holds a valid platform ticket until the contrary is proved. Similarly, it can also be presumed that every person travelling in a train possesses a valid ticket. In support of the view that such a presumption can be drawn, the learned counsel for the applicants had 2 2016 ACJ 1882 8 MGP,J CMA_694_2017 placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of High Court of Kerala in Union of India v. Parameswaran Pillai, 2013 ACJ 635 (Kerala). The facts of the reported case show that a mother claimed compensation on account of her son's death in an untoward incident, namely, a railway accident and that at that time she was not accompanying her son and that her testimony was to the effect that he was travelling in connection with his business and that, therefore, the court took the view that in the common course of human conduct she would never have had any reason to presume or believe that he would travel without a valid ticket. Going by the facts of the case, it was further presumed that the deceased would have travelled with a ticket and not without a ticket. In the said decision, the High Court of Kerala referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tahazhateh Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India, 2009 ACJ 2444 (SC), the decision of Kerala High Court in Joji C. John. v. Union of India, 2003 ACJ 52 (Kerala); and that of this Court in Union of India v. B. Koddedkar, 2003 ACJ 1286 (AP), wherein it was categorically laid down that among other things the fact that the passenger had purchased a ticket and is a bona fide passenger is always to be presumed unless it is shown to be otherwise. As per the ratio in the decisions, such presumptions always swing in favour of the injured and, if unfortunately the injured dies, such presumptions shall aid those entitled to 9 MGP,J CMA_694_2017 compensation in that regard. There is no need to multiply the decisions on this settled legal position. Having regard to the facts and the legal position obtaining it can safely be presumed and accepted that the deceased held a ticket and that the ticket was lost at the time of the incident. Viewed thus, this court holds that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the defence based on assumptions that he was not holding a ticket cannot be countenanced. The point is accordingly answered."
14. The Honourable Supreme Court in Kamrunnissa v. Union of India, 3 wherein it was observed 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 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 3 AIR 2017 SC 1436 10 MGP,J CMA_694_2017 basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
15. Moreover, the respondent except relying upon the statement of Senior Guard, had not placed any evidence to show that the applicant had not sustained any injuries in the said incident. Ex.R1-Report of DRM, reads as follows:-
"Enquiries revealed that on 03.06.2010, one male dead body was found lying at KM.No.322/9-0 on upline between Muddanur- Mangapatnam railway station noticed by on duty Key men and reported to SMR/Muddanur. As per the statement of the guard he has not received any report or complaint with regard to falling down of any passenger and also the said train was not detained for any reason between Renigunta to Dhone railway Station. In view of the above facts it is established that the deceased person was not having any travelling authority at the time of conducting inquest but some journey ticket number is included in the inquest report and furthermore the dead body was available on upline whereas the train No.7651 Express had passed on down line. Hence, it is clearly proved that the relatives of the deceased had brought some railway journey ticket and the same was included in the inquest afterwards."
16. When the respondent authorities are suspecting or denying with regard to occurrence of any untoward incident, it is the obligation of the respondent - railway authorities to conduct an enquiry as mandated in Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. In A. 11 MGP,J CMA_694_2017 Sreenivasa Rao and another v. Union of India, Secunderabad 4, learned Single Judge of this Court held as under:
"12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo & another v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway. Para 3 of the said judgment reads as under:
"3. Though rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') mandates the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident., admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before the RCT on 27.2.2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23.4.2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased detrained from the moving train of D Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railway was accepted by the RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal, i.e., FAO No.535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of the RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same by cryptic and non-speaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award and the reasons assigned in support of the same do not warrant any interference."
17. Even in the case on hand, the railway authorities have failed to conduct enquiry immediately after the accident in pursuance of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. Though the accident occurred 4 CMA No.862 of 2017 decided on 22.04.2022 12 MGP,J CMA_694_2017 on 02.06.2010, only after filing of the claim application by the applicants on 16.07.2010, the railway authorities have prepared the DRM Report on 12.01.2011 i.e., beyond the prescribed period. The above said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Moreover, the railway officials did not consider the contents of FIR or inquest panchanama, PME report or charge sheet. Except the assumptions and presumptions, the respondent has not placed any evidence except relying on Ex.R1, DRM Report.
18. 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 finding given by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the applicants are entitled for compensation.
19. 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, 13 MGP,J CMA_694_2017 this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for death of the deceased.
20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order dated 25.01.2017 passed in O.A.II(U).No.122 of 2010, on the file of 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.
21. Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.13.02.2024 dgr