Latha And 2 Others vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 3642 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

        CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.109 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the dismissal Order passed by the Railway

Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'),

in OA II(U) No.381 of 2013, dated 15.11.2018, the applicants have

preferred the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be

referred as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 15.09.2008 the

deceased-Jamas Sangala (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased')

who is resident of Chandrapur, Maharastra State with intend to go

to his sister's house at Kazipet to attend some ceremony having

purchased journey ticket to travel from Ballarshah to Kazipet and

boarded 324 Ramagiri passenger train, and accidentally had fallen

down near Vihirgaon railway station and succumbed to injuries.

The Railway Police, Wardha station registered a case in crime No.71

of 2008. Therefore, the applicants filed the application against the

respondent-Railways seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs.

4. The respondent-Railways filed written statement denying the

averments of the application and contended that since the

applicants are residents of Maharashtra State, Railway Police 2 MGP,J Cma_109_2019

Station, Wardha registered the crime No.71 of 2008 and the

incident took place near Vihirgaon Railway station, and no journey

ticket was recovered, the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction. It

is further contended that there is no eyewitness to the incident as

well as purchasing of journey ticket and travel undertaken by the

deceased. So, he was not a bona fide passenger. Hence, prayed to

dismiss the application.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was

examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of respondent-

railways, no witness was examined, however, Ex.R1 was marked.

7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, both

oral and documentary, has dismissed the application. Aggrieved by

the same, the appellants/applicants have filed the present appeal.

8. Heard Sri S.Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for the

appellants and Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned Standing

Counsel for the Railways and perused the record.

                                   3                            MGP,J
                                                         Cma_109_2019

9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants

is that though the applicants proved their case by examining AW.1

and relying on the documents under Exs.A.1 to A9, the tribunal

without considering the same, has erroneously dismissed the

application on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide

passenger. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by awarding the just

and reasonable compensation.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Railways

submitted that the Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, has

rightly dismissed the application. Hence, interference of this Court

is not necessary.

11. In view of the rival contentions made by both the parties, this

Court has perused the entire material available on record. It is

pertinent to state that the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent-Railways contended that the Tribunal has no territorial

jurisdiction as the applicants are native of Maharastra, the case was

registered at Wardah and the incident took place near Vihirgaon

railway station which falls within the State of Maharastra.

12. As per Rule 8 of The Railways Claims Tribunal (Procedure)

Rules, 1989, an application for compensation payable under Section

124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 may be filed before the 4 MGP,J Cma_109_2019

bench that has territorial jurisdiction over the place from which the

passenger obtains or purchases his pass or ticket or where the

accident or untoward incident occurs or where the place of

destination lies or where the claimant/deceased normally resides.

13. In the instant case, the destination of the deceased as per the

applicants is Kazipet, which is within the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain

the present claim petition.

14. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-

A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there

must be untoward incident where under a person died. Untoward

incident includes a person falling from the running train

accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries

must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying

passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved,

then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways

want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident

had happened or the deceased was not a bona fide passenger

travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under

anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A

of the Act.

                                  5                            MGP,J
                                                        Cma_109_2019

15. In order to prove their case, the applicant No.1 who is wife of

the deceased was examined as AW.1 and has reiterated the

averments of the application and further deposed that, on

15.9.2008 at about 10-00 A.M. her deceased husband left the house

from Chandrapur to attend the 11th day death ceremony of late

Sukkapala, who is her sister's sister in law and informed that he

would go to Ballarshah and from there he would go to Kazipet in

any passenger train. On the same day in the evening hours she

tried to contact her husband but she could not get any response

and on enquiry, her sister at Kazipet, she came to know that her

husband did not reach Kazipet. She started searching her husband

in their relatives house as well as the friends of her deceased

husband and gave complaint to the police. After one month, her

neighbours informed that one person aged about 30 years

accidentally fallen down from a passenger train near Vihirigaon on

15.9.2008 and received grievous injuries and died and also stated

that the Ballarsha railway police conducted enquiry in the above

said matter. After knowing the same, she along with the brother of

the deceased and others rushed to Ballarshah, contacted the

railway police, who informed that on 15.9.2008 one person aged

about 30 years accidentally fallen down from train No.324 near

Vihirigaon and received grievous injuries. He was brought to

Ballarshah and given treatment, but he died. The police further 6 MGP,J Cma_109_2019

informed that because they could not identify the deceased, they

buried the dead body with Government expenditure and showed the

photos of deceased and a damaged Reliance mobile phone, one rold

gold chain and two rold gold rings and a watch belong to deceased.

Then she identified and came to the conclusion that her husband

fallen down from train No.324 on 15.9.2008 at Vihirigaon. In

support of their case, Exs.A1 to A9 documents are filed.

16. Ex.A1 First Information Report, Ex.A2 Mourge report, Ex.A3

inquest report and Ex.A4 spot panchanama discloses that a person

aged about 30 years has fallen from the train and sustained

grievous injuries and he died due to injuries. According to Ex.A5

postmortem examination, the cause of death is 'cardio respiratory

failure due to hemorrhagic shock'. According to Ex.A6 final report

and Ex.A7 death certificate, the name of the deceased is 'Shri

Jamas Durgadas Sangala'.

17. Admittedly, nobody has seen the deceased purchasing the

ticket to go to Ballarsha nor boarded the train on the date of

incident. Nobody witnessed while he was falling down from the

train. Further no journey ticket was recovered from the possession

of the deceased. Thus, the applicants failed to discharge their initial

burden of proving that the deceased purchased the ticket and

boarded the train on the date of incident. Therefore, the deceased 7 MGP,J Cma_109_2019

cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger and as such, the

applicants are not entitled for compensation. In Ex.R1 Divisional

Railway Manager's report also, it is mentioned that the deceased

was not having any railway ticket or authority for his journey. In

view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the

application. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of

the Tribunal and the appeal is devoid of merits. Hence the appeal

is liable to be dismissed.

18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

07.11.2023 pgp