Samudrapu Jayavani, Viz. ... vs The Union Of India, Orissa
2021 Latest Caselaw 3490 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.880 OF 2010


                          JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant

aggrieved by the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad

in O.A.No.370 of 2006 dt.20.08.2010.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that the appellant

is the wife of the deceased Samudrapu Ganeswara Rao who was aged

27 years. On 13.02.2006, the deceased had gone to Rajam to look for

employment and on the next day, he was found dead on the railway

tracks between Nallimarla and Vizianagaram at Km 810/41-43. A Key

man of the railways found the body at about 7.15 A.M. on 14.02.2006

and thereafter, the same was reported to GRP (Government Railway

Police) and after the inquest and post-mortem, the body was handed

over to his family members.

3. The wife of the deceased filed an Application before the

Railway Claims Tribunal stating that the death of the deceased was

due to railway accident and that she is entitled to compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/-. It is stated that after meeting the MRO and MDO at

Rajam, the deceased purchased a ticket and boarded the train to return

home and on the next day, his body was found on railway tracks and

therefore, the death was caused due to railway train accident. In

support of her contention that the deceased had boarded the train after

purchase of the ticket, her cousin, R. Rambabu, was examined as

A.W.2 who confirmed that he had gone with the deceased to Ponduru

station, where he purchased a ticket and boarded Howrah - Tirupati

Express at 20.20 hours on 13.02.2006. In the cross-examination, he

denied the suggestion that he was giving false evidence only to help

the applicant. In his affidavit, he stated that on 14th February, 2006, he

came to know of the death of the deceased and after formalities were

over, he went to GRP, Palasa to give his statement, but it was not

recorded by the police. The Applicant also submitted copies of the

FIR, the inquest report, the post-mortem report, all certified by

Assistant Tribal Welfare Officer, Kurupam, and the death certificate

of the deceased. The FIR mentioned about finding of a body of 40

years old male on the up-line track. The inquest report mentioned that

the wife and father-in-law and the husband of the maternal aunt of the

deceased were the witnesses examined for the inquest and the injuries

found were on the chest, ear, cheek, forehead and head and oozing

wounds were there on the body with black grease oil stains. Basing on

the FIR, the wounds, the scene of offence, the statements of blood

relatives and the inquest report, the Railway Claims Tribunal

concluded that the deceased was in a disturbed condition and as

Jarajapupet Railway LC gate was closed, he was passing by a pathway

used by the public when the gate was closed and was hit by an

unknown train accidentally. The post-mortem was conducted on

15.02.2006 at 9.30 A.M. and it also stated that the death was due to

multiple ante-mortem injuries and injuries were caused to vital organ

brain. It was also recorded that no railway ticket was found from the

body and therefore, the Tribunal has concluded that the deceased was

not a bonafide passenger and that his death was an untoward incident.

Thus, no compensation was awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal

and against this nil award, the applicant is in Appeal before this Court

by raising grounds that the Railway Claims Tribunal has not

appreciated the evidence produced by the applicant properly.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the evidence of A.W.2, i.e., to

the effect that the deceased purchased a ticket on 13.02.2006 and

boarded Howrah - Tirupati Express, is not considered properly. As

regards non-finding of the railway ticket from the possession of the

deceased, it is submitted that as per the inquest report, the body was

dragged on and in that condition the train ticket might have got

misplaced and this fact was not considered by the Tribunal. It is

further submitted that the body was found on railway tracks, is also a

fact that the death was caused due to an accident by a train.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.L. Rao, vehemently

argued in support of these grounds and placed reliance upon a

judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Union

of India Vs. Borra Vijayalakshmi and others1 in support of his

2006 ACJ 162

contention that where a passenger fell from a running train and

sustained fatal injury, the claimants are entitled to compensation. He

also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Union of India Vs. Sushila

Devi and others2, wherein it was held that where there is no evidence

to show that the deceased committed suicide and had accidentally

fallen from a running train in between two stations and sustained fatal

injuries, the Railway Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding

compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Thus, according to

him, since it is not reported by the police or the railway authorities

that the cause of death is suicide by the deceased, the Railway Claims

Tribunal ought not to have rejected the application of the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the Railways, Sri J. Ashok Kumar,

submitted that in order to award compensation to any deceased in an

untoward incident, the passenger has to be a bonafide passenger and

in this case, the applicant has not proved that the deceased had

purchased a ticket and had travelled in the train when the accident had

taken place. Therefore, according to him, compensation has been

rightly denied to the applicant.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed

on record, this Court finds that the body of the deceased was found on

railway tracks and the inquest report and the post-mortem report also

2006 ACJ 806

do not suggest that the death was due to any reason other than an

accident involving grievous injuries to the body. The appellant has

filed the claim under Sections 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, i.e.,

compensation on account of untoward incidents. For the purposes of

Section 124 and 124A, passenger has been defined as a person who

has purchased a valid ticket for travelling on any date or a valid

platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. Section

123(c) of Railways Act, 1989 defines untoward incident to mean-

      (1) (i)      ......

          (ii)     ........

          (iii)    ......

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

Therefore, the first and foremost condition is that the deceased should

be a bonafide passenger and the death should be on account of an

untoward incident. In the case before this Court, the deceased did not

possess any ticket and the only evidence is the oral evidence of the

brother-in-law of the deceased who submitted that the deceased had

purchased the ticket and boarded the train. This statement has to be

corroborated by evidence of untoward incident, which has not been

proved in this case. In the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for

the appellant, the evidence of fall of the deceased from the train was

available. Therefore, these decisions are distinguishable on facts and

are not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, this Court finds no

reason to interfere with the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also

stand dismissed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 16.11.2021 Svv