Pasupunooti Komuramma vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 3819 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.130 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.35 of 2012, dated 20.07.2018, 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 11.9.2011 in the

evening hours the deceased-Pasupunooti Sadaiah (hereinafter will

be referred as 'deceased') who is resident of Ramakrishnapur,

Adilabad District and native of Ghanapur, Warangal District, with

intend to perform pooja of Goddess at his native place left

Ramakrishnapur, as he has to travel by train up to Uppal and then

by bus to reach his native place. Son of the deceased viz., P.Sagar

went to Ravindrakhani railway station on his two wheeler to drop

the deceased and he was with the deceased at the time of

purchasing train ticket and Sagar left the station immediately due

to some personal work. There was heavy rush in the train and as

such while traveling the deceased accidentally fell down from the

running train near station and succumbed to injuries on the spot.

                                      2                             MGP,J
                                                             Cma_130_2019

The ticket was stated to be lost in the accident. Based on the

complaint a case in Crime No.154/2011 was registered. 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 as per the FIR,

one male dead body was lying beside the track but in the inquest,

the name and address of the deceased and his relatives presented.

The application is silent about the time as to when the applicants

came to know about the incident and when they have identified the

deceased and they did not know when the deceased has boarded

the train and the applicant No.2 did not give send off to his

deceased father and also they are not aware by which train the

deceased has travelled giving suspicion. The place of accident is

very nearer to the residence of the deceased and hence, prima facie

it appears to be a case of suicide but not an accidental fall from the

train. So, the deceased 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?

                                   3                            MGP,J
                                                         Cma_130_2019

3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident?

4. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application?

5. To what relief?

6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the applicants, applicant

No.2 was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On

behalf of respondent-railways, no witness was examined, however,

Divisional Railway Manager's Report was marked as Ex.R1.

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

oral and documentary, has dismissed the application. Aggrieved

by the same, the appellants/applicant Nos.2 and 3 have filed the

present appeal.

8. Heard Sri S.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the

appellants and Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned Standing

Counsel for the Railways and perused the record.

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

A5, the tribunal without considering the same, has erroneously

dismissed the application on the ground that the deceased was not 4 MGP,J Cma_130_2019

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. 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_130_2019

12. According to the applicants, the son of the deceased viz.,

P.Sagar went to the Ravindrakhani railway station on two wheeler

to send the deceased up to railway station and he was with the

deceased at the time of purchasing train ticket and Sagar left

the station immediately due to some personal work. While

travelling in that train, the deceased accidentally fallen down from

the running train, near Ravindrakhani railway station and

succumbed with the injuries on the spot. In support of their case,

applicant No.2 who is son of the deceased was examined as AW.1

and has stated in his evidence that, on 11.9.2011 in the evening

hours he personally went to Ravindrakhani railway station to send

off his father on motorcycle. He purchased a journey ticket for

his father for travelling from Ravindrakhani to Uppal railway

station and handed over the said journey ticket to his father.

In his cross-examination he stated that on receipt of telephonic

message from the police that a dead body is lying on the track on

12.9.2011, immediately he rushed to the spot and the distance

from residence to the spot takes about 15 to 20 minutes by vehicle

and half an hour by walk. When he went to the spot, he noted that

his father's dead body was lying nearby the track in the drainage.

13. According to Ex.R1, Divisional Railway Manager's report,

eight witnesses were examined. First witness Sri M.Nagaraju, 6 MGP,J Cma_130_2019

Guard of Train No.57122 Ramagiri pass, stated that there is no

information to the train guard about the incident and he also not

found any untoward incident during his duty. Second and third

witnesses viz., Sri Mogali Ilaiah, and Sri Rajmouli, Patrolling

gangmen stated that the people gathered near the dead body

reported that their relative died due to dashing of the train

while crossing the track and he also found the dead body in

such a position that it was fallen due to dashing by the train

only.

14. Fourth witness Sri V.Praveen Kumar, commercial clerk of

Ravindrakhani railway station stated that there is no any

information of any untoward or run over to him while he was on

duty on 11.9.2011 from 16.00 to 24.00 hours.

15. Fifth witness Smt.Pasuniti Komuramma, who is the wife of

the deceased stated that, their son is residing at Mancherial

separately. Nobody came to their house to pick up her husband to

Railway station and Mallesh did not come to their house on

11.9.2011. He himself went to Railway Station. Their son was not

in their house on that day. Whereas her son told that Sri Mallesh

came to their house and he requested him to drop his father at

Railway Station. Mallesh also told that he went to the house of 7 MGP,J Cma_130_2019

deceased and dropped him at Railway Station, RVKH at

about 16-30 hours.

16. Sixth witness Sri Pasuniti Sagar, who is son of the deceased

stated that he along with his father went for work at same place on

that day. He requested Sri Mallesh who came to their house in

the afternoon to drop his father at Railway station and to

purchase a ticket to his father up to Uppal.

17. Seventh witness Sri Turty Mallesh relative of deceased stated

that on 11.9.2011 in the afternoon while he was returning from

Mancheryal to Mandamarri, he visited the house of the

deceased at Ravindrakhani, where his son in law requested

him to drop his father at Railway station. He did the same

and purchased a ticket for the deceased. He did not saw the

deceased while boarding the Ramagiri passenger and also not

known about the falling down of deceased from the train.

18. Last witness Sri J.Krishnakar, Con.601, RPF/RDM, stated

that he attended the joint observation report along with the

GRP/BPA, HC.488 and confirmed that the deceased is not having

any authority or railway ticket.

19. As per the statements of the above eight witnesses, it is

concluded that, "Therefore, it is clear that the deceased is not 8 MGP,J Cma_130_2019

having in possession of any authority or Railway ticket to travel

over the Railways and also there is no any evidence or proof that

he travelled by the train which the applicants are claiming. It is

concluded that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger and

Railway Administration is not at all responsible to pay any

compensation in this case."

20. It is pertinent to state that in the claim petition, it is stated

that, son of the deceased viz., P.Sagar went to the Ravindrakhani

railway station on two wheeler to send the deceased up to railway

station and he was with the deceased at the time of purchasing

train ticket and he left the station immediately due to some

personal work. AW.1 who is the son of the deceased has stated in

his evidence before the Tribunal that he personally went to the

Railway station to send off his father and purchased a journey

ticket for him to travel from Ravindrakhani to Uppal railway station

and handed over it to his father.

21. According to Ex.R1 Divisional Railway Manager's report,

P.Sagar who is the son of the deceased stated that he requested Sri

Mallesh who came to their house in the afternoon to drop his

father at Railway station and to purchase a ticket to his father up

to Uppal and that Sri T.Mallesh, relative of deceased also stated

that he dropped the deceased at Railway Station and purchased a 9 MGP,J Cma_130_2019

ticket for the deceased. Further according to the inquest report, no

journey ticket was found with the dead body. Therefore, there is no

evidence to show that the deceased had purchased a journey ticket

to travel over the train and that on the date of incident he boarded

the train. Further AW.1 did not speak for which train he

purchased journey ticket. Thus, the evidence of AW.1 is not

trustworthy and not believable as there are contradictions and

improvements in his evidence. There is no eyewitness to show that

the deceased boarded the train on the date of incident and while

traveling the deceased accidentally fell down from the running

train near station and succumbed to injuries on the spot. Thus,

the applicants failed to discharge their initial burden of proving

that the deceased boarded the train on the date of incident and

accidentally fallen down from the running train near

Ravindrakhani railway station and succumbed with the injuries on

the spot. On the other hand, as per the evidence of the witnesses

who are examined during enquiry have stated that some unknown

train hit the deceased while he was crossing the track. Under

these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that

as the applicants failed to discharge their initial burden and

establish that the deceased purchased journey ticket and boarded

the train on the date of incident, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the 10 MGP,J Cma_130_2019

claim application. There are no grounds to interfere with the

findings of the Tribunal.

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

No order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

10.11.2023 pgp