Telangana High Court
Jathikeerthala Anjaneyulu, Guntur ... vs The Union Of India, Secunderabad on 28 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.241 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 aggrieved by the Judgment dated 15.09.2016 in OA II (U) No.125 of 2009 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, wherein the claim petition filed by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of his father late Sri. Jathikeerthala Masthan alias Chinna Ghanni (for brevity hereinafter called as 'deceased'), was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned "Tribunal".
3. The applicant being the minor son of the deceased represented by his paternal uncle Jethikirtala Ganesh @ Peda Ghanni filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under Section 124-A of the Railway Act on account of death of his father late Sri. Jathikeerthala Masthan alias Chinna Ghanni in an alleged untoward incident while traveling from Repalle to Tenali by passenger train.
2
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.09.2008 the deceased with an intention to go to his native place i.e., Tenali, purchased a general journey ticket bearing No.27538168 worth Rs.6/- at 12:12 noon from Repalli to Tenali and boarded train bearing No. 128/129 Passenger train at Repalli railway station at about 17:50 hours. However, due to heavy rush and jerks, the deceased, who was standing at the footsteps of the general compartment while trying to go inside, accidentally fell down from the running train at Repalli Railway Stations, sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. It is further stated that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident. The father of the applicant died leaving behind his only son as dependant who is being represented by his paternal uncle Sri. Jethikirtala Ganesh alias Peda Ghanni, as guardian in the claim application.
5. The respondent filed their written statement denying the claim of the applicant and the brief averments of the written statement are as under:
a) The said incident which occurred on 30.09.2008 is not a accidental fall from the train and rather it is a clear case of suicide 3 committed under the influence of alcohol by the deceased and thus, the said willful act of deceased does not fall under the definition of 'untoward incident' as per Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, "the Railways Act") and deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
b) It is further contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered that as per Ex.R-1 DRM report, Exs. A-1 and A-2 and statement of railway guard of the train bearing No. 128 passenger train categorically prove that on the alleged date of accident, the train reached Repalle Railway station at 17:30 hours and when the train was in motion the deceased intentionally came under the said moving train and died on the spot, which is criminal act and a crystal clear case of suicide.
c) During the course of investigation it was observed in Ex.A-2 Inquest report, that the ticket which is alleged to be in possession of the deceased was issued at 12:12 hours, whereas the deceased died at about 17:30 hours and in between the time of purchase of ticket and the time of accident two passenger trains were passed from Repalle Station but the deceased did not choose to board the 4 train for the reasons best known to the deceased, which create suspicious as to genuineness of the claim application.
d) The applicant has to prove that the victim was a bona fide passenger as laid down under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim application.
6. Before the Tribunal, the guardian of the minor applicant was examined as AW1 and got marked Ex. A1 to A8. Ex.A-1 is the attested copy of First Information Report, Ex.A-2 is the attested copy of Inquest report, Ex.A-3 is the attested copy of Post Mortem report, Ex.A-4 is the copy of Death Certificate, Ex.A-5 is the copy of Death Certificate of wife of deceased. Ex.A-6 is the copy of ration card, Ex.A-7 is the copy of acknowledgement/ resident copy of Aadhar card, Ex.A-8 is the copy of study certificate of applicant.
7. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined. However, Ex.R-1 DRM report was marked.
8. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Application is maintainable? 5
2. Whether the applicant is dependent of the deceased?
3. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.128/129, while traveling from Repalli to Tenali on 30.04.2008?
4. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train?
5. Whether the applicant is entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application?
6. To what relief?
9. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the sides and having not been satisfied with the evidence adduced by the applicant, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved by the said order, applicant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside the said judgment and prayed to allow the appeal and award an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest as compensation.
10. Heard Shri S. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. K Mani Deepika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railway and perused the entire record.
6
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he had proved his case by adducing oral evidence and by relying upon the documents filed under Exs.A-1 to A-8, but the learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances and the material available on record, dismissed the claim petition fastening the negligence on the deceased. Learned counsel also contends that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased purchased a valid ticket bearing No.27538168 in order to board passenger train from Repalli to Tenali and this very fact has been categorically mentioned in column No.XV of Ex.A-2 inquest report, which indeed prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident. Learned counsel for appellant further argued that the respondent Railways did not examine any witness and the Ex.R-1 DRM Report was marked at the flag end of the claim petition which is in contradiction with Section 113 of the Railways Act, which obligates the Railway authorities to conduct a fair enquiry soon after the incident. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that they have proved their case by examining AW1 and relying on documents under Exs.A1 to A8, but the learned Tribunal without considering the same has 7 erroneously dismissed the claim application on the ground that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and also failed to prove the relationship and authority of guardian to represent the minor son of the deceased. Thus, the applicant prayed to allow the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Railways has submitted that the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the claim application and the interference of this Court with the order passed by the learned Tribunal is unwarranted and prayed to dismiss the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal at threshold.
13. The point for consideration before this Court are:
Point -I Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident or it is case of suicide?
Point No-II If so, whether the appellant being minor son of the deceased represented by the guardian is entitled for compensation as contemplated under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?
14. AW1 is the paternal uncle of the appellant i.e., minor son of the deceased and he has reiterated the averments of the 8 application in his chief-examination. He deposed that the deceased purchased a general passenger journey ticket from Repalle to Tenali at 12:21 noon hours and boarded the passenger train at about 17:50 hours and due to heavy rush, the deceased was standing at the footsteps of the compartment to go inside and meanwhile due to jerks he accidentally fell down and died on the spot due to multiple injuries.
15. As per the respondent Railways, the said incident is clearly a case of suicide and not an untoward incident as contended by the appellant in his claim application. Respondent Railways relied upon Ex.R-1 DRM report to prove that the deceased intentionally fell before the running train. It was stated that the railway guard of the train bearing No. 128 passenger train has categorically stated that on the alleged date of accident the train reached Repalle Railway station at 17:30 hours and when the train was in motion the deceased intentionally came under the said moving train and he was in a drunken state at the time of alleged incident and due to fall he sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Further, it was also stated that as per Ex.A-2 Inquest report, the ticket which is alleged to be in possession of the deceased was issued at 9 12:12 hours, whereas the deceased died at about 17:30 hours and in between the time of purchase of ticket and the time of accident two passenger trains have passed from Repalli station at 13:50 and 15:40 hours, but the deceased not boarded both these trains, if at all he has any intension to travel and reach his destination he would have boarded any of these two passenger trains, but he did not choose to board the train for reasons best know to him. Therefore, the case at the hand is clearly a suicidal case and not an 'untoward incident' for which Railway authorities are not responsible to pay any compensation as per Railways Act.
16. It is significant to observe that Ex. A-1 First Information Report, is lodged based on the complaint given by Assistant Station Master Repalle, who is a railway employee and Ex. A-2 Inquest Report was prepared based on the spot panchanama by Railway authorities and authorities have not examined any witness neither loco pilot nor guard of the train to prove the statements and opinions so formed in inquest report to disprove the version of appellant in his claim application. Thus, mere stating or forming an opinion would not suffice. Even for a moment, if it is assumed that two trains have passed in between the time of purchase of 10 ticket and boarding of train by the deceased, it would be for any personal reasons. It is quite known fact that many trains run beyond their expected time of arrival and there may be chance of missing trains due to some pre-occupied personal works by the deceased after purchasing a valid journey ticket, which is nothing to do with the claim application and such stand by railways cannot be countenanced in a beneficial legislation. Moreover, it is to be seen that in most of the trains especially in general compartments the crowd will be so heavy that some times passengers cannot board such trains and they will be compelled to catch the next train to reach their respective destinations. Even in the case on hand, prior to his death, the deceased was at the foot steps of the compartment. From this an inference can be drawn that the general compartment, which was boarded by the deceased was heavy. Even assuming for a moment that the deceased was having any intension to commit suicide, he will not buy train journey ticket in railway counter and wait till late evening to commit suicide. Thus, in absence of any evidence by railway authorities to prove that the deceased committed suicide, the contention of railway authorities cannot be acceptable.
11
17. Furthermore, the Railway authority has taken a specific plea that the deceased was in drunken state, but on perusal of contents of EX.A-3 i.e., the Post Mortem Report does not contain any remarks regarding alcohol content being found in the body of the deceased. In such circumstance of ambiguity as to the statement of Railway authorities and averments by the appellant, the post mortem report, which was given by a competent medical officer, will have some credence in the eyes of law.
18. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the applicant categorically establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died due to accidental fall from the running train.
19. Learned standing counsel for Railways though vehemently contended that the accident was not an 'untoward incident' and deceased might have committed suicide, but no evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent to prove that the deceased intentionally fell down in front of running train and died because of suicide or as a result of self-inflicted injuries or by his own criminal act or that the death was caused by any natural means or medical or under the influence of alcohol. Further, it was observed 12 in Ex.R1 that the guard of the train stated that the deceased intentionally came under the said moving train and run over, died at the spot. Based on Ex.R1 DRM report and relying on the statements of Train Guard (Sri. K Lokanath) and statement of ASIPF/Guntur Post (Sri. M. Durga Prasad) the railway authorities concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and it is case of suicide.
20. On perusal of Ex.R1 DRM report, there is no averment to the extent that the deceased has committed suicide or criminal act. Further, it is significant to observe that the only version that was considered by the railway authorities was the version of Train Guard by name Sri. K Lokanath, who stated that one male person aged about 60 years intentionally came in front of moving train and died on the spot. On perusal of entire DRM Report, there is no iota of remarks about documentary evidence relied upon by the applicants under Exs.A1 to A8, which clearly demonstrates that the deceased was traveling in the train and during his journey, he accidentally fell down from the moving train, which caused the death of the deceased. When the respondent authorities are suspecting or denying with regard to occurrence of any untoward 13 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. Sreenivasa Rao and another v. Union of India, Secunderabad 1, 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."
21. Even in the present case also, the railway authorities have failed to conduct enquiry immediately after the accident in pursuance of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of 1 CMA No.862 of 2017 decided on 22.04.2022 14 Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. Though the accident occurred on 30.04.2008, only after filing of the claim application by the applicant on 30.04.2009, the railway authorities have prepared the DRM Report on 15.12.2009 i.e., beyond the prescribed period of 60 days. The above said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Except the assumptions and presumptions, the respondent has not placed any evidence except relying on Ex.R1 DRM Report.
22. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident happened on 30.04.2008. Therefore, from the above discussion and the decision referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has established that the deceased died in an untoward incident.
23. Point II: Now, coming to the significant issue of the case on hand, the learned Tribunal observed that the appellant being minor was represented by his paternal uncle named Sri. Jethikirtala Ganesh alias Peda Ghanni. However, he did not file any proof to establish that under what authority he is representing the appellant before the learned Tribunal in the capacity of 15 guardian and held application is not tenable under the law. It is pertinent to note that the appellant filed Ex. A-6 copy of ration card issued by the competent authority wherein the deceased his wife and appellant i.e. minor son name and photographs was categorically mentioned and subsequently, the mother of minor appellant died on 02.03.2009. In support of this appellant also filed Ex. A-5 death certificate of wife of the deceased and mother of the appellant named Narsamma. Although the paternal uncle of the minor represented as guardian in the claim application without filing any proof to establish his capacity to represent as a guardian, it would not disentitle the appellant, who is the son of the deceased to claim compensation for the death of his father in an untoward incident. Perusal of record shows that at the time of filing claim application the minor son of the deceased was aged about 13 years and at the time of filing this appeal he was aged about 17 years and by now he has attained majority. Therefore, in view of the same this Court is of the considered opinion that the minor son of the deceased, who has attained majority is entitled to compensation in the capacity of dependent as stipulated under the Act. It is settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, the interpretation that is beneficial to the applicants has 16 to be preferred, as the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is enacted to protect the interests of the passengers. Similar view was taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar 2.
24. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down in the above said decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Railway Claims Tribunal without considering all these aspects came to the wrong conclusion by dismissing the claim application of the applicant and hence, the said findings of the Tribunal are hereby set aside holding that the appellant is entitled for compensation as the deceased died in an 'Untoward Incident'.
25. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, in case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment i.e., on 30.04.2008, 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, applicant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 2 (2008) 9 SCC 527 17
26. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order dated 15.09.2016 in OA II (U) No.125 of 2009 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad is set aside and thereby compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- is awarded to the applicant. 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 is entitled to withdraw the said compensation without furnishing any security. No order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 28.02.2024 AS