Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M. Venkata Ramanaiah vs Union Of India on 4 November, 2023

Bench: K Manmadha Rao

            THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                       C.M.A.No.79 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

The Appellants herein are the applicants before both The

Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Amaravati (in short

'the learned tribunal') filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

before this Court.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2019 in O.A-II(u) 497

of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned Tribunal.

3. The appellants are the parents of the deceased, who have

been filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.

8,00,000/- along with interest from the respondent/ Railways on

account of death of one M. Anila untoward incident that occurred

on 09.07.2009, while travelling by a passenger train before the

learned tribunal. The learned tribunal after hearing on both sides,

holding that the deceased is not proved to be a bonafide passenger

of the train and her death not on account of an untoward incident.

Rather, she is proved to have jumped from the running train and

committed suicide. Therefore the learned tribunal dismissed the

claim application. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to

be filed.

4. Heard Ms. N.S.Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Jupudi V.K.Yagnadutt, learned counsel for the

respondents.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would

contend that the learned tribunal grossly erred in holding that the

deceased was not a bonafide passenger and 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.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that

the except gold chain and ear studs, no other articles or the

journey ticket was found or recovered from the deceased and that

she cannot be treated as a bonafide passenger. Further it is not the

case of accidental fall from the train and it is a case of suicidal

death by jumping from the running train. Therefore, the appellants

are not entitled to claim any compensation. The learned tribunal

rightly considered the facts and circumstances and dismissed the

claim of the appellants. Hence, the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed.

7. Perused the record.

8. On perusing the entire material available on record, this

Court observed that, it is an admitted fact that the deceased did

not possess railway journey ticket alleging that the same have been

lost either in the accident or carried away in the suitcase along

with other belongings. The learned tribunal points out that an

unmarried daughter of the appellants was missing since

09.07.2009 and they preferred complaint to the police on

28.07.2009. But no complaint was made to the G.R.P Authorities

during the intervening period and even in the newspaper missing

of the deceased was given on 30.07.2009. Therefore the learned

tribunal suspected the death of the deceased. Further the inquest

report would show that the deceased jumped from the train and

committed suicide.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Section 123

(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the accident falling of any

passenger from a train carrying passers, reads as under:

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.

10. On one hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel

for the appellants is that the railway ticket was lost during the

accident, and the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid

journey ticket. On the other hand, the contention of the learned

counsel for the respondents is that no railway ticket was found on

the body of the deceased and the deceased has committed suicide.

To rebut the same, learned counsel for the appellants would

contend that how can third parties viz., ambulance driver can

comment upon the personal issues of the deceased as he is

complete stranger to the deceased person and that it is purely a

suicidal case. The ambulance driver has not been examined.

Therefore, such contention cannot be believed.

11. As could be seen from the Inquest Report, it is mentioned

that the deceased jumped from the Janmabhoomi Express train,

which goes from Visakhapatnam to Secunderabad, committed

suicide, severely injured and died. Further the deceased was

missing on 09.07.2009 as per published notice and on the same

day her father given a complaint before the Commissioner of Police,

Visakhapatnam and crime also registered as FIR No.49 of 2009.

Therefore the cause of death is in dispute. After one year, Charge

Sheet dated 28.09.2010 was filed, wherein Additional Divisional

Railway Manager opined "that the cause of death of the deceased

was committed suicide by jumping from running train, more over she

is not a bonafide passenger. Therefore, the claim made by the

parents of the deceased for compensation is not acceptable".

12. When there is a dispute with regard to cause of death,

the respondents/ Railways has a authority to enquire the same,

though they filed Charge Sheet after one year, in between the

railway authorities has to conduct discreet enquiry and examine

the witnesses, but they failed to do so and simply concluded that

the deceased was committed suicide by jumping from running

train is highly not believable. There are latches on the part of the

railway authorities and failed to establish their case in proper

lines. When the respondents failed to conclude the cause of death,

the appellants ought to have claim compensation on that ground

also.

13. Further, in "Union of India Vs. Rina Devi" 1, wherein

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.

14. In the light of judgment of "UOI v. Radha Yadav"2,

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."

(AIR 2018 SC 2362)

(2019) 3 SCC 410

15. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing

the material available on record, 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 held

responsible and liable to pay the adequate compensation.

16. However, this Court already allowed the C.M.A.No. 19 of

2020 dated 28.08.2023 in similar circumstances. Therefore

following the decisions cited supra and also considering the

submissions made by both the counsel, this Court is of the