Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kotikalapudi Lakshmi Chaitanya vs Union Of India on 26 December, 2023

       THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                     C.M.A.No.261 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

The Appellant herein is the applicant before The Railway

Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Amaravati (in short 'the

learned tribunal') filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

before this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned

Tribunal dated 08.02.2019 in O.A-II(u) 12 of 2011.

2. The appellant is the daughter of deceased Kotikalapudi

Veerabrahmam, filed the claim application seeking compensation

of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest from the respondent/

Railways on account of death of deceased in an untoward incident

that occurred on 09.10.2010, while going towards Ongole in a

passenger train and accidentally fallen down at Km.No.328/21-19

and died. The learned tribunal after hearing on both sides, holding

that it is quite apparent that a well knitted story has been

projected, which has absolutely no base to believe. As such there

are many material gaps in the projection and the tribunal find

justification that deceased was a trespasser or hit by certain

unknown train. Accordingly, the claim application was dismissed.

Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed.

3. Heard Mr. M. Lakshma Reddy and Mr.P.L.Rao, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.Hemanth Kumar, learned

counsel appeared for the respondent.

4. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would

contend that the learned tribunal ought to have taken the

contingence of the fact that GRP's investigation that the deceased

was a passenger holding a journey ticket suffered injuries and

died. Further the learned tribunal grossly erred in holding that the

death of the deceased was not due to an untoward incident. The

learned tribunal has viewed liberally while dismissing the claim

application, without appreciated the applicability of the provisions

of Section 124-A of the Railway Act. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to

be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that

there is no eye witness to incident and as per para 13 of the

Inquest Report would show that the mishap occurred due to

unknown reason. As per DRM's Report would show that the

journey ticket was issued at 17.22 hrs on 09.10.2010 costing Rs.

2/- for journey of 12 Km. It is further contended that the deceased

dead body was found on Upline on 10.10.2010 at 8.50 hrs. There

is no evidence by which train deceased travelled and fell. Therefore,

the appellant is not entitled to claim any compensation. The

learned tribunal rightly considered the facts and circumstances

and dismissed the claim of the appellant. Hence, the C.M.A is

liable to be dismissed.

6. Perused the record.

7. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that this matter is squarely covered by this Court order

dated 29.09.2023 passed in C.M.A.No. 17 of 2020, wherein this

court following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

"Kamukayi & Ors. V. Union of India and Ors"1, wherein it was

held as follows:

"This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India and the judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India and also considered the judgement of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India6 and in para 29 concluded as thus-

"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 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828 (2019) 12 SCC 391 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."

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court also discussed the same verdict

cited supra in "Union of India v. Rina Devi2" case also and

passed Award. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant would

contend that the case law cited supra is squarely applicable to the

facts of this case. Therefore the appellants are entitled the claim as

prayed for.

9. In Rina Devi's case cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that, on the burden of proof, which emphasized that

any person found dead or injured on railway premises is presumed

to be a bona fide passenger unless the railway administration

proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are

perverse.

10. In the light of judgment of "Union of India v. Radha

Yadav3", wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

"because death is proved due to outcome of untoward incident of the deceased being a bona fide passenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded."

http://Indiankanoon.org/doc/94898543/

(2019) 3 SCC 410

11. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants drawn

the attention of this Court with regard to Section 123 and also 25

which reproduced hereunder:

Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989

123. Definitions.--In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(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;

(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.

25 [(c) "untoward incident" means--

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of subsection (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.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing

the material available on record and as per the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme court in Kamukayi's case, it is observed that

the respondents are failed to establish that whether the deceased is

a bona fide passenger or not, as the burden lies on the respondent

authorities and hence the railway administration is liable to pay

the adequate compensation. Therefore, considering the

submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court

is of the considered opinion that while setting aside the impugned

judgment, inclined to allow the present appeal.

13. With regard to interest part is concerned, learned

counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in "Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Others v. Union of

India and Another"4 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as

follows:

"22. In the instant case, the claim for compensation accrued on 13.11.98, when Kunhi Moosa, the husband of the appellant No.1, died on account of being thrown out of the moving train. The claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (O.A.No.68 of 1999), was filed immediately thereafter in 1999. There was no delay on the part of the claimants- appellants in making the claim, which was ultimately granted for the maximum amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 26.03.2007. Even if the appellants may not be entitled to claim interest from the date of the accident, we are of the view that the claim to interest on the awarded sum has to be allowed from the date of the application till the date of recovery, since the appellant cannot be faulted for the delay of approximately 8 years in the making of the award by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Had the Tribunal not delayed the matter for so long, the appellants would have been entitled to the beneficial interest of the amount awarded from a much earlier date and we see no reason why they should be deprived of such benefit. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period which the same could have been made available to the claimants.

23. In our view, both the Claims Tribunal, as also the High Court, were wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims.

24. We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the order of the High Court dated 24.5.2007 affirming the order of the trial court and direct that the awarded sum will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent simple interest per annum from the date of the

2009 ACJ 2444

application till the date of the award and, thereafter, at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till the date of actual payment of the same".

14. Following the decisions cited supra, this Court is inclined

to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The impugned judgment

dated 08.02.2019 passed in OA/II/U/12 of 2011 by the learned

tribunal, is hereby set aside. The appellant is entitled to claim

compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) from

the respondent and direct that the awarded sum will carry interest

at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of filing claim till the date of the

award/ order and, thereafter, at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of

actual payment of the same.

15. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

is allowed. It is made clear that the respondent, Union of India, is

directed to pay the compensation along with interest as stated