Telangana High Court
Sheak Teak Saheb, Prakasam Dist And ... vs Union Of India, Secunderabad on 13 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.694 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants
under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for
short 'Act') aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.01.2017 in OA.II
(U).No.122 of 2010 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the applicants
claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest for death of
one Masthan (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), was dismissed
by the Tribunal.
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 of the applicants are that the
deceased along with his friends Bala Brahmaiah and Pratap Reddy
had went to Kadapa Railway Station and purchased three
individual journey tickets from Kadapa to Kurnool and after some
time boarded into train No.7651 Chennai Egmore/Kacheguda
Express into a general compartment. The said compartment was
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
heavily crowded and hence they were sitting at different places.
When the train was passing between Muddanur/Mangapatnam
railway stations, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fallen
down from the said train on 02.06.2010 night and sustained
serious injuries and died subsequently. The applicants are
parents of the deceased and sudden death of the deceased
devastated them both mentally and financially. Hence, the
present claim application is filed seeking compensation for the
death of the deceased.
4. The respondent railways filed written statement along with
the report of the Divisional Railway Manager (for short 'DRM'),
wherein it is contended that the applicants have not filed proper
documentary proof regarding the Death Certificate of the deceased
and denied the averments of the applicants and also contended
that there is no cause of action for applicants as the claim does
not fall within the ambit of Section123(C) or Section 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989. It is further contended that the applicants
have stated in the claim petition that the deceased was travelling
along with his two friends but none of them have reported the
incident either to the guard of the train No.7651 express of
02.06.2010 nor to the Station Master of Muddanur and
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
Mangapatnam. The GRP have not examined any eye-witness. As
per inquest report the dead body is in decomposed condition
would indicate that he might have died long back due to some
other reasons. The applicants have not produced the PME report
nor the final report of the GRP to suppress the real cause of death
of the deceased. The ticket produced by the applicant is a planted
ticket therefore, the deceased cannot be treated as bonafide
passenger and prayed to dismiss the claim application.
5. The applicants, in order to substantiate their claim,
examined applicant No.1 as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to
A-10. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined,
but Ex.R-1 was marked.
6. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, has dismissed the claim application of
the applicants. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicants
have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
7. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants as
well as the learned Standing counsel for the respondent-Railways
and perused the entire record.
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
applicants/appellants is that they have proved their case by
discharging their initial burden by examining A.W.1 and also by
relying upon the documents under Exs.A-1 to A-10, but the
Tribunal without considering the same has erred in dismissing the
claim petition. The appellants claimed that the finding of the
Tribunal that deceased was not a bonafide passenger is a gross
error. It is also contended by the applicant that the Tribunal erred
in contending that in the absence of witness on behalf of the
respondent-railways, the conclusion arrived is against the law.
Therefore prayed to set-aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal
and award a reasonable compensation on account of the death of
the deceased in a train accident.
9. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for respondent-
Railways argued that the learned Tribunal, after considering all
the aspects, has rightly dismissed the claim petition.]
10. Now the point for consideration is as follows:-
"Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed
for?"
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
11. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
filed on both sides. There is no dispute with regard to the
relationship between the deceased and the applicants. The only
dispute as contended by the learned counsel for respondent-
Railways is that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger as the
ticket produced by the applicant is a planted ticket. In this regard
it is pertinent to mention that Ex.A1-Copy of FIR reveals that on
03.06.2010, when the Deputy Station Manager of Yerraguntla
Railway Station was on his duty at about 14.20 hours, one
prabhakar, Railway Gang Keyman informed him that he found a
male dead body lying on the upline railway track at KM.No.322/9-
0 between Muddanur-Mangapatnam railway stations. He entered
the same as a death message and sent it to GRP/YA. Further, the
opinion expressed by the panchayatdars, who conducted inquest
under Ex.A2 shows that deceased was travelling in Train No.7651
Egmore to Kacheguda express in general compartment along with
his friends and he was last seen alive by Bala Brahmaiah, who
accompanied the deceased while travelling. The inquest report
further reveals regarding the articles found with the deceased
except a driving license containing name and phone number no
other items were found with the deceased including the ticket. But
at the end of the para 7 the details of ticket No.57521899 from
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
Kadapa to Kurnool for Rs.67/- by Egmore Express dated
02.06.2010 is inserted to establish that the deceased was in
possession of train journey ticket under Ex.A.3. Further, the post
mortem examination under Ex.A.4 also reveals that the deceased
died of massive subdural Haemorrhage due to injury sustained in
the head as a result of accidental fall from a train. Hence, with
the above documents it is established that the deceased died due
to accidental fall from a train which resulted in an untoward
incident. Further, it is also pertinent to mention that it is highly
difficult for a person to travel long distance without a ticket.
Therefore, it shall be deemed that he was having a valid ticket
(Ex.A.3) and thereby, he was a bonafide passenger. There was no
foul play suspected in the death of deceased. Therefore, it is clear
that the appellants have established that the deceased, while
travelling in the train, had accidentally fallen down from the
moving train and died in an untoward incident. Thus, the
contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, that no
untoward incident has occurred, is not sustainable.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a
Judgment reported in Suman Sharma Vs.Union of India 1
2018 ACJ 2849
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
wherein it was held that mere absence of ticket on the body of the
deceased would not disentitle the appellants to claim
compensation, in the absence of any such proof that he had
committed suicide or was intoxicated, as such, to fall within the
exceptions under Section 124-A and could not be held to be a
trespasser in the railway train.
13. Moreover, in Shaik Mahboob Basha and others v. Union of
India 2, wherein the Single Judge of this Court held as follows:
"As rightly contended it is undisputed that a
person will not be permitted even onto the platform
without a platform ticket and that a person will not
be permitted to travel in a train without a valid ticket
with him and that a duty is enjoined upon the
officers of the Railways to regulate the entry of
passengers to the platform or into the railway station
and into the compartments of trains and that the
Railways have sufficient mechanism and manpower
to regulate the same. Therefore, it can be presumed
that every person entering into onto the platform
holds a valid platform ticket until the contrary is
proved. Similarly, it can also be presumed that every
person travelling in a train possesses a valid ticket.
In support of the view that such a presumption can
be drawn, the learned counsel for the applicants had
2016 ACJ 1882
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of
High Court of Kerala in Union of India v.
Parameswaran Pillai, 2013 ACJ 635 (Kerala). The
facts of the reported case show that a mother
claimed compensation on account of her son's death
in an untoward incident, namely, a railway accident
and that at that time she was not accompanying her
son and that her testimony was to the effect that he
was travelling in connection with his business and
that, therefore, the court took the view that in the
common course of human conduct she would never
have had any reason to presume or believe that he
would travel without a valid ticket. Going by the
facts of the case, it was further presumed that the
deceased would have travelled with a ticket and not
without a ticket. In the said decision, the High Court
of Kerala referred to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Tahazhateh Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India,
2009 ACJ 2444 (SC), the decision of Kerala High
Court in Joji C. John. v. Union of India, 2003 ACJ 52
(Kerala); and that of this Court in Union of India v. B.
Koddedkar, 2003 ACJ 1286 (AP), wherein it was
categorically laid down that among other things the
fact that the passenger had purchased a ticket and
is a bona fide passenger is always to be presumed
unless it is shown to be otherwise. As per the ratio
in the decisions, such presumptions always swing in
favour of the injured and, if unfortunately the injured
dies, such presumptions shall aid those entitled to
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
compensation in that regard. There is no need to
multiply the decisions on this settled legal position.
Having regard to the facts and the legal position
obtaining it can safely be presumed and accepted
that the deceased held a ticket and that the ticket
was lost at the time of the incident. Viewed thus,
this court holds that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger and that the defence based on
assumptions that he was not holding a ticket cannot
be countenanced. The point is accordingly
answered."
14. The Honourable Supreme Court in Kamrunnissa v. Union
of India, 3 wherein it was observed 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 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
3 AIR 2017 SC 1436
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard
will stand explained accordingly."
15. Moreover, the respondent except relying upon the statement
of Senior Guard, had not placed any evidence to show that the
applicant had not sustained any injuries in the said incident.
Ex.R1-Report of DRM, reads as follows:-
"Enquiries revealed that on 03.06.2010, one male dead body was
found lying at KM.No.322/9-0 on upline between Muddanur-
Mangapatnam railway station noticed by on duty Key men and
reported to SMR/Muddanur. As per the statement of the guard he
has not received any report or complaint with regard to falling
down of any passenger and also the said train was not detained
for any reason between Renigunta to Dhone railway Station. In
view of the above facts it is established that the deceased person
was not having any travelling authority at the time of conducting
inquest but some journey ticket number is included in the inquest
report and furthermore the dead body was available on upline
whereas the train No.7651 Express had passed on down line.
Hence, it is clearly proved that the relatives of the deceased had
brought some railway journey ticket and the same was included in
the inquest afterwards."
16. When the respondent authorities are suspecting or denying
with regard to occurrence of any untoward incident, it is the
obligation of the respondent - railway authorities to conduct an
enquiry as mandated in Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (manner
of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. In A.
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
Sreenivasa Rao and another v. Union of India, Secunderabad 4,
learned Single Judge of this Court held as under:
"12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Kalandi Charan Sahoo & another v. General
Manager, South-East Central Railway. Para 3 of the
said judgment reads as under:
"3. Though rule 7 of the Railway Passengers
(Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents)
rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules')
mandates the railway authorities to investigate into
such an untoward incident., admittedly, no such
inquiry was conducted immediately after the
incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim
before the RCT on 27.2.2009 that investigation into
the incident was ordered on 23.4.2009. According to
the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the
deceased detrained from the moving train of D Cabin
without stoppage of the train and invited the
accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid
basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railway was
accepted by the RCT resulting into the dismissal of
the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the
appeal, i.e., FAO No.535 of 2013 challenging the
aforesaid order of the RCT. The High Court has
dismissed the same by cryptic and non-speaking
order with the only observations that findings of the
Tribunal in the impugned award and the reasons
assigned in support of the same do not warrant any
interference."
17. Even in the case on hand, the railway authorities have failed
to conduct enquiry immediately after the accident in pursuance of
the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of
Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. Though the accident occurred
CMA No.862 of 2017 decided on 22.04.2022
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
on 02.06.2010, only after filing of the claim application by the
applicants on 16.07.2010, the railway authorities have prepared
the DRM Report on 12.01.2011 i.e., beyond the prescribed period.
The above said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the
case on hand. Moreover, the railway officials did not consider the
contents of FIR or inquest panchanama, PME report or charge
sheet. Except the assumptions and presumptions, the respondent
has not placed any evidence except relying on Ex.R1, DRM Report.
18. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that
the learned Tribunal had erroneously dismissed the claim
application despite the applicants have discharged their initial
burden. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding
given by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the applicants are entitled
for compensation.
19. Coming to the quantum of compensation, in case of death in
an accident which occurred before amendment i.e., on
26.01.2014, the prevailing basic figure in respect of death case
was Rs.4.00 lakhs, which has been subsequently enhanced to
Rs.8.00 lakhs as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward
Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. Therefore,
MGP,J
CMA_694_2017
this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants are
entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for death of the
deceased.
20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and
the order dated 25.01.2017 passed in O.A.II(U).No.122 of 2010, on
the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench,
Secunderabad is set aside and the applicants are granted
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 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 applicants are entitled to
withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall
be no order as to costs.
21. Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.13.02.2024
dgr
