R. Ananthamma vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 313 Tel

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

   CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.153 OF 2021


JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the judgment in O.A.II(u)No.21 of 2018

on the file of Railway Cliams Tribunal, Secunderabad

Bench dated 16.12.2019 by which the application filed by

the applicants herein for compensation on account of

death of one R.Narsimhulu, was dismissed by the Tribunal,

the applicants have filed this appeal on the following

grounds:

The judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to law and

facts of the case. The Tribunal has shown narrow minded

approach while adjudicating the case. The Tribunal failed

to appreciate the applicability of provisions under Section

124-A of Railways Act and grossly erred in holding that the

deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The applicants

have claimed that the finding of the Tribunal that the death

of the deceased was not due to untoward incident is

unjustifiable and untenable. The Tribunal ought to have

considered that the Act under which the claim is filed is

CMA No.153 of 2021

beneficial piece of legislation, thereby it could have adopted

liberal approach and granted compensation and they have

also claimed that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the

evidence and material available on record, thereby sought

for setting aside the judgment and sought for

compensation as per provisions of Railway Claims Act.

2. As could be seen from the judgment and other

record, it appears that the appellants herein filed an

application before the Railway Claims Tribunal under

Section 18 and Rule 18 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act and

RCT (Procedure) Rules and sought for compensation on

account of death of one R.Narsimhulu hereinafter will be

referred to as deceased in a train accident. According to

their claim, the deceased was resident of Buranpur of

Mahabubnagar District. He was a coolie. His wife Smt.

R.Padmamma who is no more and he had no children. On

30.04.2015 he boarded one MMTS train and travelled from

Lingampet to Falaknuma. The applicants have claimed that

he has purchased second class ordinary MMTS ticket and

boarded the train after 02:30 p.m. He has informed the

same to his parents over his mobile phone. He reached the

CMA No.153 of 2021

station accompanied by his friend who is examined as AW2

and who left the station after the departure of the train.

3. The appellants herein have claimed before the

Tribunal that when the train was in transit and as there

was heavy rush in the train, the deceased slipped and fell

down from the running train at K.M.170/40-42 in between

Hit-Tech City-Borabanda Railway stations due to speed,

jolts and sudden jerks of the train and died on the spot in

the afternoon. Having filed the said application, the

applicants have sought for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

The said application was opposed by the

respondent/Railways on the ground that there is no eye

witness to the alleged incident. There was no ACP. A report

from the Divisional Railway Manager was filed along with

number of enclosures to show that the deceased was not

having any ticket and there was no evidence to believe that

the deceased fell from the above referred train.

4. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and during

enquiry the mother of the deceased has been examined as

AW1. One B.Subhash who is the alleged eye witness of

deceased entering MMTS has been examined as AW2. The

CMA No.153 of 2021

applicants have marked Ex.A1 to A8. The respondent has

examined one M.Odelu, Chief Booking Clerk as RW1 and

marked Ex.R1 to R3.

5. The Tribunal having heard both parties and having

appreciated the evidence, came to the conclusion that there

is no material to believe that the deceased was bonafide

passenger and he died due to untoward incident, dismissed

the application.

6. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned

standing counsel for the respondent.

7. Now the point for consideration in the present appeal

is :

Whether the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the application and whether there is material to believe that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bonafide passenger, thereby the applicants are entitled to compensation?

8. POINT

According to the evidence both oral and

documentary available on record, the death of the deceased

CMA No.153 of 2021

in the alleged untoward incident said to have occurred

after 02:30 P.M., on 30.04.2015. According to the evidence

of both witness examined by the applicants, it was

specifically stated that the deceased went to Lingampalli

Railway station on 30.04.2015 said to have purchased a

ticket and boarded MMTS to go to Falaknuma. It is also

claimed by the applicants as well as by AW2 that the

deceased died by accidentally slipped from the train in

between Hi-Tech City-Borabanda. The record available

before the Court including post mortem report clearly

demonstrates that on 30.01.2015 Chief Booking Clerk at

Fatehnagar received information that a dead body was

lying on down line between Borabanda-Hi-Tech City

railway stations on 30.04.2015 at 11:45 am.

9. According to the evidence available on record, the

deceased was seen in the morning hours i.e., at 09:30 am

on 25.04.2015 by his younger brother. As per the inquest

report and post mortem report that was conducted on

02.05.2015, by the time the dead body was noticed, the

stomach portion was open, foul smell emanating from it,

with insects found and face was not identifiable. Even as

CMA No.153 of 2021

per the inquest report, head of the deceased was crushed.

There was laceration at abdomen cavity. The post mortem

report indicates that the death of the deceased was 3 to 5

days prior to post-mortem that was conducted on

02.05.2015.

10. The very contention of the appellants that the

deceased fell from a running train in bright day light that

too in between Hi-Tech City-Borabanda escaped the

attention of other passengers is highly unbelievable. Had it

been there, it could have drawn the attention of the co-

passengers who would have raise hue and cries, but in this

case until the dead body which was found in decomposed

state with foul smell, nobody has identified the death of the

deceased. It is true the applicants have examined AW2 to

show that he accompanied the deceased to Lingampet

Railway station and left the station only after the deceased

entered the train. The evidence of AW2 is very clear that he

and deceased belong to same village and he has got close

acquaintance with the family of the appellants. Therefore,

there is every chance of his speaking false, may be with a

view to help the mother and other relatives of the deceased

CMA No.153 of 2021

to get some compensation. The record including the

inquest report and post mortem report clearly indicates

that the death of the deceased was much prior to

30.04.2015 on which date the dead body was found in the

bushes in decomposed state. Therefore, the evidence of

AW2 and contention of the applicants that the deceased

boarded one MMTS train and slipped from the running

train, cannot be accepted to be true.

11. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim

and there is no material to reverse the said finding or to

award compensation to the applicants. Therefore, the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU Date: 25.01.2023 Pssk