Arempula Venkateswarlu Babu vs The Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1765 Tel

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1138 of 2017

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant against the

orders in O.A. II (U) No.219 of 2010, dated 20.07.2017 on the file

of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2010, the mother

of the applicant i.e. the deceased Arempula Chandramma went to

Motamarri on her personal work and after that, in the evening, the

deceased returned to Motamarri Railway Station, purchased

journey ticket bearing No.41532 from Motamarri to Khammam for

Rs.6/- and as the goods train was halted in Motamarri railway

station, Train No.172 i.e. Vijayawada-Dornakal Passenger was

taken up on the main line. The deceased went on Up main line on

the track to board the said train and accidentally got hit by Train

No.172 Up passenger train and sustained severe injuries. The

Deputy Station Manager, who was on duty, shifted the injured

person into the same train with the help of passengers and informed

to on-duty Deputy Station Manager, Bonakal for arranging medical

GAC, J CMA.No.1138 of 2017

aid at Bonakal. When they reached Bonakal, 108 ambulance staff

came and declared the injured as dead.

3. The respondent-Railways filed a detailed written statement

before the Tribunal contending that the appellant is not entitled for

any compensation for the death of the deceased, as the accident

did not occur while the deceased was traveling on the train as a

bona fide passenger.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the deceased/

Arempula Chandramma was a bona fide passenger as she

purchased journey ticket No.41532 to travel from Motamarri to

Khammam on 14.02.2010 by Train No.172 i.e. Vijayawada-

Dornakal Passenger. He further submitted that as the said Train

was taken up on main line, the deceased was forced to go there and

was waiting on the track, and at that time, the accident had

occurred. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation

from the Railways.

GAC, J CMA.No.1138 of 2017

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/railways

contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on

evidence and that the possibility of planting a railway ticket by the

appellant in order to claim compensation cannot be ruled out.

Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of appeal

7. In view of the rival contentions, the points to be considered

in this case are:

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger;

2. Whether the appellant is entitled for compensation; and if so,

3. To what relief ?

8. POINT No.1 : On perusal of the entire record, it is evident

that the FIR/Ex.A-1, inquest report/Ex.A-2 and charge sheet/

Ex.A-4 disclose that the accident took place as Train No.172

Vijayawada-Dornakal passenger hit the deceased while she was on

the Up main line and was waiting on the track for the said Train.

The post-mortem report/Ex.A-3 disclose that the deceased

succumbed to the injuries sustained by her in the said accident.

Ex.A-5 is the journey ticket dated 14.02.2010 for Rs.6/- from

GAC, J CMA.No.1138 of 2017

Motamarri to Khammam, which was recovered from the dead body

of the deceased, which clearly disclose that the deceased purchased

the journey ticket to travel from Motamarri to Khammam and

suffered the accident in the railway station premises at Motamarri.

The inquest report/Ex.A-2 also corroborates as to the recovery of

Ex.A-5/journey ticket from the dead body of the deceased. Ex.R-1

is the Divisional Railway Manager's report, which also establishes

the death of the deceased on the railway track at Motamarri. But,

Ex.R-1/DRM's report concludes that the deceased was a lady

hawker and she was negligently crossing the track in front of the

train which is an offence under the Railways Act, due to which, the

train dashed against her causing severe injuries and she succumbed

to the same, and therefore, the Railway administration is not at all

responsible for the death of the deceased Arempula Chandramma,

and in view of the same, the claimant is not entitled for any

compensation from the Railways.

9. Basing on the material available on record, this Court can

safely arrive at a conclusion that the dead body of the deceased was

found on the track at Motamarri Railway Station and the deceased

GAC, J CMA.No.1138 of 2017

died due to hit of the train while crossing the track. Having regard

to the facts and circumstances of the case and the established

principles of law, this Court is of the considered view that the death

of the deceased had occurred as a result of untoward incident.

Though the Divisional Railway Manager's report indicates that the

deceased was a railway hawker, there is no other supporting oral or

documentary evidence on record to that effect. On the other hand,

the recitals of Ex.A-2/inquest report at Column No.7 disclose that

Ticket No.41532 dated 14.02.2010 was recovered from the dead

body of the deceased.

10. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the judgments in

Smt.Vinodamma & others v. Union of India1, in K.Vidya

Kumari & others v. Union of India, South Central Railway,

Secunderabad2 and in Sunita Maudgil & others v. Union of

India3, wherein, it is held that a passenger holding a valid ticket

irrespective of train, is a bona fide passenger.

AIR 2010 KARNATAKA 174

2003 (1) ALT 65

2017 (3) PLR 163

GAC, J CMA.No.1138 of 2017

11. Since the deceased had purchased valid journey ticket and

the accident had occurred on the railway track in the railway

station premises when she was waiting for the train, the deceased

can be considered as a bona fide passenger. In view of the same,

this point is decided in favour of the appellant, holding that the

deceased was a bona fide passenger.

12. POINT No.2 : In view of the discussion on point No.1, as

the deceased was found to be a bona fide passenger, it follows that

the appellant is entitled for compensation.

13. POINT No.3 : Coming to the quantum of compensation,

though the appellant has filed the O.A. claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/-, as per the Schedule given by the Ministry of

Railways vide Notification dated 22nd December, 2016, the

Railways are liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the

death of its passengers. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of his mother

Arempula Chandramma.

GAC, J CMA.No.1138 of 2017

14. In the result, the appeal is allowed, granting compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellant. The order dated 20.07.2017, passed

by the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II (U)

No.219 of 2010, is hereby set aside. The respondent/Railways

shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 07.04.2022

ajr