Rayapathi Mahabob And Anr vs The South Central Railway
2023 Latest Caselaw 4074 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

        CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.896 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the dismissal Order passed by the Railway

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

in OAA No.564 of 2006, dated 07.04.2011, the applicant Nos.2 and

3 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 6.3.2006 the deceased-

Rayapati Masthan Saheb (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased')

purchased a ticket, boarded a train and was traveling to Tirupathi

to meet a friend and was standing by the door since the train was

crowded and due to jerks and jolts of the train, he fell down and

died between Pullampet and Obuvaripalli station at KM No.192/4-1.

The ticket was stated to be lost in the accident. Therefore, the

applicants have 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 just because a

body was found at KM 192/4-1 on 7.3.2006, it did not presuppose

that the person had fallen from a train and that the applicants not 2 MGP,J Cma_896_2012

mentioned the train number from which the deceased fell or the

ticket number. It is further contended that the postmortem was

conducted at 4-00 p.m. on 8.3.2006 estimated the time of death as

2 to 3 days earlier which meant that the death would be in between

4-00 p.m. on 5.3.2006 to 6.3.2006 and not later. So, the deceased

was not a bona fide passenger and that the alleged incident if any

was caused by self inflicted injuries by his own criminal acts. The

applicant as a daughter in law was not eligible for compensation

under the Railways Act. 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 traveling from Rajampet to Tirupathi on 6.3.2006?

3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train?

4. To what relief?

6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2

and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of respondent-railways,

RW.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.

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

oral and documentary, has dismissed the application. Aggrieved by 3 MGP,J Cma_896_2012

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

present appeal.

8. Heard Sri Y.Koteswar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants

and Sri K.Arvind Kumar, 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 AWs.1

and 2 and relying on the documents under Exs.A.1 to A6, the

tribunal without considering the same, has erroneously dismissed

the application. 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. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed

by the learned Commissioner is sustainable under law?

POINT:

12. This Court has perused the entire material available on

record. Firstly the application was filed by the applicant No.1 who

is the daughter in law of the deceased. Later she filed a petition to 4 MGP,J Cma_896_2012

add her husband who is the son of the deceased and daughter of

the deceased and as there was no counter from the respondent

despite an opportunity was given, the petition was allowed and they

were added as applicant Nos.2 and 3. Applicant No.1 who is

daughter in law of the deceased was examined as AW.1 and has

reiterated the averments of the application. She further deposed

that on 6.3.2006 the deceased went to Rajampet RS and purchased

journey ticket for Rs.15/- from Rajampet to Tirupathi for passenger

train No.207 and during his journey, he stood near the door. Due

to heavy rush in the compartment when the train reached near

Pallampet due to sudden jerks and jolts, the deceased fell down and

died at KM 192/4-1. In the cross-examination she admitted that

she is not an eyewitness to the incident.

13. AW.2 Y.Ravi Kumar deposed that on 5.3.2006 one of his

relative came to his house from Tirupathi by name Mr.K.Ram

Chandraiah. On 6.3.2006 he returns to Tirupathi. His relative

Ramachandraiah purchased ticket from Rajampet to Tirupathi. By

the time of purchasing ticket, Mastan Saheb-one of his village

people is also in "que". On enquiry, he informed that he is going to

Tirupathi to meet his friend. After second day he came to know that

Mastan Saheb fell down from train during his journey. He informed

the same to his family members. In the cross-examination he 5 MGP,J Cma_896_2012

stated that he saw the ticket of the deceased. Except the same,

nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony.

14. Further Ex.A1 F.I.R. discloses that on finding of one male

dead body by the railway staff, a case in crime No. 20 of 2006 was

registered by the Railway Police. During investigation, Ex.A2

inquest report was conducted and the panchayatdars opined that

the deceased was travelling in a train and was fell down from the

train accidentally and due to head injury and due to heavy bleeding,

he was expired. The voter ID card of the deceased was available but

no journey ticket was available with the deceased. Further Ex.A3

postmortem examination also reveals that the death of the deceased

was due to cardio respiratory failure due to head injury and the

time of death was about 2 to 3 days prior to postmortem

examination.

14. At this juncture, reliance can be placed in Rina Devi v.

Union of India 1, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held as

follows:

"We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will

(2019) 3 SCC 572 6 MGP,J Cma_896_2012

not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."

14.1 In the instant case, the applicants have filed affidavits of

AWs.1 and 2 along with the documentary evidence in the form of

Exs.A1 to A6 and thus, they have discharged their initial burden.

Accordingly, the burden shifts on to the respondent-railways to

establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

16. On behalf of the respondent-Railways, RW.1 was examined.

His evidence is helpful to the limited extent that the dead body was

found during his duty hours and that he informed the GRP about

the same. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the respondent-

Railways. Further the Railways did not conduct any enquiry and

did not file Divisional Railway Manager's report in support of their

contention. Admittedly, the journey ticket was not found along with

the deceased. Merely because the deceased was not possessing

journey ticket, it cannot be said that the deceased did not die in an

untoward incident in the absence of D.R.M. Report. Thus, following

the above decision of the Apex Court, the contention of the learned 7 MGP,J Cma_896_2012

counsel for the respondent-railways that the deceased was not a

bona fide passenger is unsustainable. Hence, the applicants are

entitled for compensation.

17. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, according to

the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)

Amendment Rules, 2016, the amount of compensation to be paid to

the applicants w.e.f. 1.1.2017 is Rs.8 lakhs. Thus, the applicants

are entitled for Rs.8,00,000/-. As per Sec.123 of the Railways Act,

daughter-in-law is not the dependant. Hence, applicant No.1 who is

the daughter in law of the deceased is not entitled for compensation.

Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are son and daughter of the deceased.

Therefore, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are only entitled for compensation.

18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and

the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad

Bench, in OAA No.564 of 2006 dated 07.04.2011 is set aside.

Consequently claim application is allowed in part by awarding the

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the applicant Nos.2 and 3 only.

Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled in equal shares. The respondent

Railways is directed to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. On such deposit, the applicant Nos.2 and 3 are

permitted to withdraw the entire compensation awarded to them 8 MGP,J Cma_896_2012

without furnishing any security. The claim application against the

applicant No.1 shall stands dismissed. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 17.11.2023 PGP/AS