Telangana High Court
Lalith Man Singh Bora And Another vs Union Of India on 19 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1080 OF 2019
J U D G M E N T:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by applicants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for short 'Act') aggrieved by Order dated 03.06.2014 in M.A.No.8 of 2014 in Review Petition No.6 of 2014 in OAA No.139 of 2008 (impugned Order) on the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), wherein the claim application filed by applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Sri Kailash Singh Bora (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), was dismissed.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred as per their array before the learned Tribunal.
03. The brief facts of the case are that applicant Nos.1 and 2 who are parents of the deceased filed a claim application under Section 16 of the Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased in an untoward incident. 2
04. According to applicants, on 06.08.2007 the deceased was arrived at Delhi from his work place Uttarakashi and informed to applicants about his arrival at Delhi and also about leaving to Chennai on official work and return to Delhi on 30.08.2007. On 30.08.2007 applicant received a phone call from Railway Police Ballarshah stating that some articles, documents and a mobile phone was seized in S8 berth No.6 from Tamilnadu Express at Ballarshah Railway Station. They were also informed that one person from Tamilnadu Express from Chennai to New Delhi in S8 berth No.6 was fallen accidentally between Jammikunta and Uppal Railway Stations in Andhra Pradesh while the train was running and advised to meet the Railway Police, Kazipet/Warangal and also to collect the seized articles. Immediately, one of the relative Mr.Harish Rautela met the Railway Police, Kazipet/Warangal and upon showing the corpse the deceased was identified as Mr.Kailash Singh Bora. A case in FIR No.283 of 2007 was registered by Railway Police, Kazipet and the corpse was carried to Delhi on 31.08.2007 for last rites.
05. It is further contended by applicants that the deceased was their only son and they are depending upon him and that he was a bonafide passenger of Tamilnadu Express travelling from Chennai to New Delhi with valid ticket and died in the untoward 3 incident. Hence, applicants filed claim application seeking compensation from respondent for the death of the deceased.
06. Respondent filed written statement denying the averments of the claim application and contended that there is no cause of action for applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Respondent also denied the manner of the accidental fall of the deceased from the train. It is contended that the deceased was not having valid journey ticket and the incident must have happened due to the own imprudent, criminal negligence and reckless acts of the deceased, which amounts to self-inflicted injury, which falls under exception (b) and (c) to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and that respondent is not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim application.
07. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
i. Whether applicant are dependants of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train Tamilnadu Express while travelling from Chennai to New Delhi?
iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train?
iv. To what relief?4
08. Before the learned Tribunal, in order to substantiate their claim, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of respondent, their officials were examined as RW1 to RW3 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.
09. After considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim application of applicants vide Order dated 05.04.2013 in OAA No.139 of 2008 and applicants filed an application in M.A.No.8 of 2014 in Review Petition No.6 of 2014 in OAA No.139 of 2008 seeking to reopen the matter for reviewing decision in OAA No.139 of 2008 and the same was also dismissed vide Order dated 03.06.2014. Aggrieved by the same, applicants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. Heard Smt. G.Uma Rani, learned counsel for the appellants-applicants and Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent and perused the record.
11. The main contention of learned counsel for applicants-
appellants is that though applicants have proved their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon the Exs.A1 to A11, the learned Tribunal without considering the 5 same erred in dismissing the claim application. Hence, prayed to allow this Appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.
12. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent argued that after considering all the aspects the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application and the interference of this Court is unwarranted and prayed to dismiss the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
13. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether impugned Order passed by learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside and if so, whether applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed for? P O I N T:
14. This Court perused the documents and evidence placed on record by both the sides.
15. Applicant No.1 who is father of the deceased was examined as AW1 and he reiterated the contents of claim application and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of respondent, RW1 to R3 were examined. RW1-Train Ticket Inspector, Kazipet deposed that he worked for Tamilnadu Express on 30.08.2007 from Vijayawada to Ballarsha (Train No.2621 UP) and checked S10 to S13 after crossing Warangal. At that time, he 6 was called by Train Superintendent and asked to come to S5 and informed him that one male passenger fell down from train in between Uppal and Jammikunta Railway Station and that train was not stopped and there was no ACP to the train. The Train Superintendent checked the chart pertaining to S8 coach and found that passenger of berth No.6 is missing and the name of the passenger is Mr. Kailash Singh Bora. He further deposed that at about 08:00 AM., the said passenger was travelling by sitting at the door. During the course of cross examination, he admitted that the person fell down from the train while travelling in a reserved compartment.
16. RW2-Deputy Station Superintendent, Kazipet deposed that on 30.08.2007 at 09:30 AM., he received telephonic message from duty Deputy Station Superintendent, Uppal that a male person fallen down from Train No.2621 Express (Tamilnadu Express) at KM No.340/25-27 on upline between Uppal and Jammikunta Railway Stations. During the course of cross- examination, RW2 stated that all the documents pertaining to message, including the original, were spoiled due to falling of water from overhead water tank adjacent to the store room situated on 2nd floor of Kazipet Railway Station. 7
17. RW3-Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kazipet, deposed that he examined witnesses i.e., Mr. P.Madhu Mohan, TTE, Kazipet and Mr. G. Ashok Babu, Head Constable, RPF and their statements clearly shows that the deceased travelled by sitting at the door and the staff of train already warned the deceased not to sit at the door of running train. During the course of cross-examination, RW3 admitted that the deceased was having valid ticket and travelled in the reserved compartment.
18. It is pertinent to state that appellants apart from oral evidence, also relied upon documentary evidence in Exs.A1 to A11. A perusal of Ex.A1-First Information Report discloses that shows that a case in FIR No.283 of 2007 was registered by Railway Police, Kazipet and took up investigation. After completing investigation, Final report under Ex.A4 was laid. A perusal of Final report shows that no foul play was suspected and it was concluded that the death was accidental. A perusal of inquest report under Ex.A2 also shows that inquest was done in the presence of panch witnesses to the inquest report, wherein at column No.15 it is mentioned that the deceased fallen accidentally from 2621 Tamilnadu Express prior to 10:30 hours on 30.08.2007 at KM No. 340/25-27 between Uppal and Jammikunta Railway 8 Stations in drainage and the deceased sustained head injury and died. Ex.A3-Postmortem examination report also shows that the death of the deceased was due to head injury and other multiple injuries. Ex.A5-Death certificate of the deceased, Ex.A6-Copy of Voter ID card of the deceased, Ex.A7-Copy of Voter ID card of applicant No.1, Ex.A8-Copy of High School Certificate of the deceased, Ex.A9-Copy of Family Members Register, Ex.A10 and A11-Saving Bank Pass Books of appellants.
19. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute regarding the travel of the deceased in the train No.2621 Tamilnadu Express and died due to accidentally fall from the said train. The only contention of learned Standing Counsel for Railways is that the deceased fallen due to his own negligent act. It is important to note that the deceased had purchased valid ticket for traveling in reserved compartment. Therefore, there is no need for the deceased to travel by standing near the door. As it is a reserved compartment there is no rush of passengers in the train. Moreover, there is no eyewitness to the incident. Under these circumstances, it is clear that there is no dispute that the deceased fell down from train and was holding valid journey ticket. Therefore, he can be termed as bona fide passenger, who accidentally fell down from running train and the same is clearly 9 established. Hence, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Railways that the deceased died by his own act of negligence by sitting at door of reserved compartment, is unsustainable.
20. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim application merely on the aspect that appellants are not the dependents of the deceased. Applicants who are parents of the deceased are aged about 51 and 46 years respectively as on the date of filing claim application in the year 2008. In Ex.A6-Copy of Voter ID card of the deceased and Ex.A8-Copy of High School Certificate of the deceased, name of applicant No.1 is shown as father of the deceased. Ex.A9-Copy of Family Members Register, Ex.A10 and A11-Saving Bank Pass Books of appellants, are establishing the relationship between the deceased and applicants that they are parents of the deceased. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding relationship between the deceased and applicants. It is relevant to extract Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989:
"(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in section 124;
(b) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:
(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;10
(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;
(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;
(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;(c)"untoward incident"
means--(1)(i)the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section (3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or(ii)the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or(iii)the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson,by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or(2)the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
21. As per Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989, it is clear that if the deceased is unmarried his parents are his dependents. In the present case on hand, applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, it can be safely concluded that applicants are the parents of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from perversity and interference of this Court into the said findings, is necessary. The learned Tribunal has committed error in dismissing the claim application filed by applicants and the claim 11 application is liable to be allowed by granting compensation to applicants.
22. 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.4,00,000/-, which has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that applicants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for death of the deceased.
23. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and Order dated 03.06.2014 in M.A.No.8 of 2014 in Review Petition No.6 of 2014 in OAA No.139 of 2008 (impugned Order) on the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, is set aside and applicants are granted compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Respondent-Railways is hereby directed to deposit the compensation before the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, applicants are equally entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
12
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 19-MAR-2024 KHRM