Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tamada Yasoda vs Union Of India on 5 January, 2024
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.548 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
The present Appeal is preferred by the appellants
aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.10.2019 passed in
OA/II/u/261 of 2010 by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Amaravaati Bench, Guntur (for short "the Tribunal").
2. The claim of appellants/applicants before the
Tribunal is that they have filed an application before the
Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A and 125 of Indian
Railways Act 1989 against the respondent Railway
administration claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with
interest from the date of accident and costs for the death of
Sri Tamada Kurma Rao (hereinafter referred to as "the
deceased") in an alleged untoward incident that occurred on
03.02.2010. The claim of the appellants is that in the early
hours of 03.02.2010, the deceased boarded DMU Passenger
as usual from Korlam to Surla Railway station. During the
course of journey, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell
down from the said train at KM No.635/20-22 in between
Jadupudi and Ichapuram Railway stations due to heavy
rush of passengers and jerks of the train. As a result of
which, he died on the spot.
3. The respondent Railway administration filed its
written statement and denied all the allegations made in the
claim application and stated that no journey ticket or any
travel authority was found from the possession of the
deceased, thus the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
It is further stated that there was no such report of falling of
any passenger either by the guard or by any co-passenger of
that train. As such, the claim does not fall within the ambit
of Section 123(c ) read with Sections 124, 124A of the
Railways Act, 1989. Hence, the Railway administration was
not liable to pay compensation.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
i) Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) of the
deceased?
ii) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the
train ?
iii) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward
incident?
iv) Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation
as claimed by them in the application?
v) To what relief?
5. During course of the trial, the appellant
No.4/applicant No.4 was examined as AW.1 and the
documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on their behalf. On
behalf of the Railway administration, RW.1 was examined
and the documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked on its
behalf.
6. Basing on the facts and circumstances, attending
circumstances and preponderance of evidence on record, the
Tribunal has dismissed the application. Challenging the
same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be
filed.
7. Heard Sri P.L. Rao, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and Sri J.Bhaskar Rao, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent.
8. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the judgment of Tribunal is contrary to law
and contrary to facts of the case and therefore the same is
liable to be set aside. He further submits that the finding
arrived at by the Tribunal is based on assumptions and
presumptions without any ample evidence. He further
submits that the Tribunal committed grave error in taking
into consideration the DRM report which was filed beyond
the statutory period and therefore the DRM cannot be taken
into account as the same is in violation of Rule 7(2) and 13
(1) and (2) of the Manner of Investigation and Untoward
Incident Rules and in view of the same, the judgment under
appeal is sustainable and vitiated with irregularity and does
not stands to judicial scrutiny. As the final report
submitted by IO it has been specifically mentioned that the
cause of death is due to fallen from DMU passenger and
there is no any foul play, this report itself is quite sufficient
to hold that the deceased was a passenger travelling the said
train. He mainly submits that the Tribunal failed to note
that the DRM report has to be filed within 60 days of the
accident, otherwise the claim application has to be allowed.
He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen
that the appellants in order to substantiate their claim have
let in oral and documentary evidence i.e., AW.1 and Ex.A1
to Ex.A7 and therefore there is no justification in dismissing
the claim of the appellants.
9. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the
appellants has placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad
High Court reported in Union of India through General
Manager vs. Jogeshwar Prasad & another1, wherein it was
held that :
It is settled law that right to life is fundamental right,
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Once
the Railway issues the tickets to board the train, then it is the
duty of the Railway to take necessary measures for safety
and security of the passengers. It is for the Railway to take
steps or provide appropriate measures or infrastructures, so
that whenever the train moves from the platform, the doors are
closed. Whether it is reserved or unreserved compartment, the
life of citizen cannot be put to risk. Lives of people travelling in
reserved compartment cannot be treated superior to the people
travelling in unreserved compartment. So far as security
measures are concerned, that should be taken by the Railway
uniformly for the reserved and unreserved compartments.
Necessary steps must be taken by the Railway through
mechanical device or by appointment of appropriate staff, so
that whenever, train moves from the platform, the doors must
be closed and on arrival of train on platform, it may be
opened. The Railway or the Government cannot shirk from its
responsibility with regard to the safety and security of the
passengers travelling by train or using the platform. Needless
to mention that as per legal maxim- Salus Populi Est Supreme
Lex means "regard for the public welfare is the highest law"
10. Learned counsel for the appellants while relying
on the above citation, submits that the facts of the above
IV (2010) ACC 569
case are applicable to the present set of facts of the case.
Therefore, prayed to pass appropriate orders.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the respondent's evidence in DRM's report has
annexed statements of the concerned guard, SS/Jhadupudi
and on-duty Keyman under SE/P.Way/SPT which have
rebutted the assertion of the applicants. He further submits
that there was no such report of falling of any passenger
either by guard or by any co-passenger of that train.. He
further submits that there is no train journey ticket was
recovered from the dead body of the deceased or from the
vicinity of the place of incident. There is no corroborative
evidence to support the averment. Therefore, the deceased
was not a bona fide passenger of the said train.
12. On perusing the entire material available on
record, this Court observed that, the appellants in their
claim stated that the deceased was boarded DMU passenger
as usual from Korlam to Surla Railway station and during
the course of journey, the deceased accidentally slipped and
fell down from the said train at KM No.635/20-22 in
between Jadupudi and Ichapuram Railway stations due to
heavy rush of passengers and jerks of the train.
13. As seen from the evidence of AW.1, he has
admitted that the exact date of accident of the deceased was
not known to him. He also stated that "the deceased left the
house on 3.2.2010 but we don't know when he died".
Nothing has been mentioned about the purchase of journey
ticket in his chief affidavit. This Court observed from the
impugned judgment that, as per Memo, the location of the
dead body was stated to be a distance of 10 meters from the
track. However, it is recorded at Column VII of the
Panchanama that body was at a distance 20 feet and was
giving bad odor. It is also recorded that "there are no
information regarding properties of the deceased for which
there are no credible information". Injuries on the right side
of the head and the forehead, fracture of right leg, left leg
completely crushed and left hand completely fractured were
noted in the Panchanama. The Panchayatdars opined that
the deceased, while travelling on 03.02.2010 in unknown
train, fell down accidentally. However, this opinion is not
supported by any corroborative fact brought out in the
Panchanama. It appears that the panchayatdars formed
their opinion on the basis of information gathered by them
that the deceased was doing business by selling breads in
Itchapuram and was last seen by his wife on 03.02.2010 at
5.00 AM.
14. As far as the bonafide of the deceased as a
passenger is concerned, this is a case where the relevant
journey ticket has not been found. In such cases the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Union of India Vs. Rina
Devi2, wherein it was held that the mere presence of a dead
body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold
that the injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger for
which claim for compensation could be maintained.
However, mere absence of ticket which such injured or
deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide
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.
15. 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 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.
16. On one hand, the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was a bona
fide passenger with a valid journey ticket. On the other
hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent is that no railway ticket was found on the body
of the deceased. It is indeed a matter of concern that the
Government Railway police who are supposed to investigate
all such deaths are too happy to close cases of body found
near the track as one due to fall from a train. In this case
they have not applied their mind as to how anyone who has
allegedly fallen from a running train could be found in the
state that the deceased was found. The deceased in the
present case is not shown to be a bonafide passenger and
his death is not on account of an untoward incident. Due to
the said reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
17. In a case of Union of India (stated 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.
18. In the light of judgment of UOI 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."
19. Needless to mention that the lives of the people
travelling in second class or upper class are equally precious
(2019) 3 SCC 410
for the respective family and nation. It does not make any
difference as to whether the passengers are travelling in the
second class or upper class. The burden lies on the railway
to make necessary arrangements by mechanical/electronic/
manual devise so that the even to departure of the train
from platform, the doors are shut and on arrival at the
station, it may be open. Further, it is the duty of the railway
to make necessary arrangements to regulate the safe entry
of the passengers in the compartments. Sections 57, 58 and
59 have been provided in the Act to secure safety measures
and welfare of the people at large. The burden lies on the
Railway to give effect the statutory provisions in its letter
and spirit.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon
perusing the material available on record, it is observed that
the respondent is 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 appellants, this Court is of the considered
opinion that while setting aside the impugned judgment,
inclined to allow the present appeal.
21. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
allowed. The impugned the judgment dated 16.10.2019
passed in OA/II/u/261 of 2010 by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Amaravti Bench, Guntur, is hereby set aside and
the application filed by the applicants claiming
compensation is allowed by awarding compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with interest
at 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its
realization. The respondent, Union of India, is directed to
deposit compensation amount before the Tribunal within a
period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. On such deposit, the applicants are entitled to
equal shares in the compensation amount without
furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous
applications shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : -01-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.548 of 2019
Date : 01.2024
Gvl
