K.Karuna vs Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 617 Tel

Telangana High Court

K.Karuna vs Union Of India on 14 February, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.216 OF 2016

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 24.02.2016 in

OAA.No.145 of 2008 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.4,00,000/- with interest for death of

one K.Chinna Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), was

dismissed.

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 accompanied by his two brothers in law Ravada Chiluka

@ Srinu and R.Srinu went to Vijayawada Railway Station from

Chiluvuru in the night on 20.03.2008 and purchased a 2nd class

group train journey ticket bearing No.94308458 for Rs.288/- from

Vijayawada to Vishakapatnam for 3 of them and they boarded the

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

train No.2828 Hyderabad- Vishakapatnam Godavari Express in a

2nd class general compartment and settled here and there in the

said compartment as there was heavy rush of passengers inside

the compartment. It is further stated that the train journey ticket

was kept with Ravada Chiluka @ Srinu. While travelling, the

deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train

when the train was at Narsipatnam road railway station due to

speed and jerks of the train and due to heavy rush of passengers

he was dragged by the said train to a distance of 20 sleepers and

sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot in the

early hours on 21.03.2008. The persons who accompanied the

deceased found missing the deceased at Vishakapatnam and

made enquiries. The applicants are dependents of the deceased

and sudden death of the deceased devastated them both mentally

and financially. Hence, the present claim application is filed by

the applicants seeking compensation for the death of the

deceased.

4. The respondent railways filed written statement denying the

contents of the claim application and contended that the

applicants have planted the train ticket. It is also contended that

there was not ticket found with the deceased at the time of death

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

and at the time of inquest. The alleged ticket was produced by the

brothers in law of the deceased after 3 days and further stated

that the tickets will be handed over to the TC at the gate when

they are leaving the station then why the co-passengers have not

surrendered the ticket to the TC and why they kept the ticket with

them for all the 3 days gives scope that the tickets were planted by

the applicants. The applicants are not aware how the deceased

had fallen down from the train though brothers in law

accompanied the deceased during alleged travel, but in the

application they mentioned that he slipped and fell down and they

came to know that through a 3rd party that in the newspaper one

unknown dead body was found by Tuni Police. It is also

contended that as per the enquiries with the night patrolman

reveals that the body of the deceased was noticed at OHE post

Km.704/06 between DN main line and UP loop line. As per the

records of Station Superintendent/NRP train No.2728 express had

halted on platform No.2 ie.,Down loop line whereas the body was

found between down main line and Up loop line, not having any

railway travelling ticket. Further the inquest report shows that

the deceased run over by the unknown and nonstop train at

Narsipatnam Railway Station and dragged the body about 20

sleepers and the body was found in the middle of the yard and

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

platform whereas the Godavari Express (Train No.2728) having

general compartment at the end of the formation. As per the

enquiry, it reveals that the deceased had committed suicide at the

Narsipatnam railway Station under the unknown pass through

train and not having any railway ticket. Hence the deceased is not

eligible for any claim from Railway administration to the claimant

as it is a clear case of suicide and he is not bona fide passenger

and prayed to dismiss the claim application.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed

the following issues:

1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train No.2728 Godavari express while travelling from Vijayawada to Vishakapatnam on 21.03.2008?

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

4. To what relief?

6. The applicants, in order to substantiate their claim,

examined applicant No.1 as A.W.1 and one of the person

accompanied the deceased as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to

A-8. On behalf of the respondent, two witnesses were examined

as RW.1 and RW.2 and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked. The

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

Tribunal has examined two witnesses as CW1 and CW2 and

marked Exs.C-1 and C-2.

7. 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.

8. Heard, the learned counsel for the applicants and the

learned Standing counsel for the respondent and perused the

entire record.

9. 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 A.W.2

and also by relying upon the documents under Exs.A-1 to A-8, but

the Tribunal without considering the same has erred in dismissing

the claim petition. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and award

compensation to the applicants.

10. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent

argued that after considering all the aspects the Tribunal has

rightly dismissed the claim petition and the interference of this

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

Court is unwarranted and prayed to dismiss the present Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal.

11. This Court perused the documents and evidence placed on

record by both the sides. The applicants got examined applicant

No.1 as A.W.1 reiterating the contents of the claim petition.

Though, she was cross-examined by the respondent, nothing

contrary was elicited in the same. Further, A.W.2 i.e., brother in

law of the deceased, who travelled along with deceased, stated

that they purchased a 2nd class group train journey ticket from

Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam and they boarded the train and

after they reached Visakhapatnam in the morning found the

deceased missing and made further enquiries and further stated

that the railway police concluded about the accident that the

deceased slipped and fell down near Narsipatnam Road Railway

Station in the early hours of 21.03.2008 due to rush of

passengers, speed and jerks and he was dragged by the said train,

sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot.

12. A perusal of Ex.A-1 copy of First Information Report

discloses that the deceased as unknown dead body. Ex.A-2,

inquest request discloses that there is no possibility to identify the

dead body as the head and face are pressed and the deceased is

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

unknown. Ex.A-3, Postmortem examination discloses that the

body is cut into 5 pieces and the head separated from body and

crushed. All skull bones and facial bones crushed and both

hands, both legs are separated from the body, blood stains

present all over the body. Further Ex.A-4 is original ticket, Ex.A-5

is death certificate, Ex.A-6 is Final report, Ex.A-7 is copy of ration

card, Ex.A-8 is Family members certificate of applicants.

13. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent, RW-1 and RW-2

were examined and marked Exs.R.1 to R.4. RW-1 in his evidence

stated that he was working as Night Patrolman at Narsipatnam

Railway Station and got marked Exs.R1 and R.2 and stated that

the GRP searched the dead body and found with no ticket. The

dead body was found lying between up loop line and down main

line. Further, RW-2 deposed that he went for accident site

inspection and attended the inquest and gone through the

divisional railway manager report and stated that it is not feasible

that the dead body which was found in the subject case could

have fallen from Godavari Express and marked Exs.R3 and R4.

The sketch which is a part of divisional railway manager report is

also submitted and as per this sketch the dead body fell on offside

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

of the platform this further leads credence in Section 124-A of the

RailwaysAct

14. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the applicants are the

dependents of the deceased. The dispute is with regard to

occurrence of untoward incident and fall of the deceased from the

Godavari Express near Narsipatnam road railway station.

According to the applicants, the deceased along with his two

brothers in law went to Vijayawada railway station from Chiluvuru

in the night on 20.03.2008 purchased a 2nd class group train

journey ticket bearing No.94308458 from Vijayawada to

Vishakapatnam for 3 of them and they boarded the Govadavari

Express train in a 2nd class general compartment. When the said

train reached near Narsipatnam road railway station, the

deceased fell down from the running train and died on spot.

15. The respondent relied upon the DRM report and as per the

DRM report, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the

dead body of the deceased was found by the patrol man at around

6:20 am. As per the chart sketched by GRP/Tuni the dead body

was lying beside the track east side of down main line towards

VSKP direction. But as per records of SS/NRP, train No.2728

halted on platform No.2 this clearly shows that the version of the

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

applicants that deceased boarded train No.2728 is false. The DRM

report finally concluded that the cause of mishap was due to

suicide which is one of the exceptions to untoward incident under

provision (a) to Section 124-a. The DRM report is filed herewith as

EXs.R1. As per the application the deceased accompanied with his

two brothers-in-law in the alleged journey. The co-passengers gave

the statement to the RPF that they are not aware of what

happened to their brother-in-law as they were sleeping. But in the

application the applicants mentioned that the train was over-

crowded hence the deceased has fallen from the train. The above

two statements are contradictory because the co-passengers

sleeping indicates that they have occupied seats. It is deemed that

the train was not rush/over-crowded because the co-passengers

sleeping in the train means they have got seats in the

compartment. So, the act of the deceased amount to suicide

attempt. It is evident by the sketch drawn by the GRP police that

the death was not due to fall from the train No.2728.

16. Coming to the deceased being bona fide passenger travelling

in train as on the date of incident, the applicants relied upon the

Ex.A-4 original combined ticket for three persons. It is not

disputed that Sri Ravada Chiluka@ Srinu and R.Srinu were with

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

the deceased and it is not the case that the deceased was

travelling alone. The respondent based on the DRM report

contended that the deceased committed suicide at the

Narsipatnam Railway Station under the unknown train and was

not having any railway ticket as alleged by the applicants, but

except mere contention no oral evidence or documentary evidence

is placed on record by the respondent to prove their case.

17. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a

Judgment reported in Suman Sharma Vs.Union of India 1

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.

18. 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

2018 ACJ 2849

2016 ACJ 1882

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

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 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

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

those entitled to 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."

19. 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 basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."

20. 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

3 AIR 2017 SC 1436

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. In A.

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."

21. 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

on 21.03.2008, only after filing of the claim application by the

applicants on 10.06.2008, the railway authorities have prepared

the DRM Report on 30.07.2009 i.e., beyond the prescribed period.

CMA No.862 of 2017 decided on 22.04.2022

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

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 proper evidence.

22. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the Tribunal without considering all the aspects has

dismissed the claim petition filed by the applicants. Hence, the

impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside

and the applicants are entitled for compensation.

23. Coming to the quantum of compensation, in case of death in

an incident which occurred before amendment i.e., on 26.01.2014,

the prevailing basic figure in respect of death case was

Rs.4,00,000/-, which has been subsequently enhanced to

Rs.8,00,000/- as per the Railway Incidents and Untoward

Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. Therefore,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants are

entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for death of the

deceased.

MGP,J CMA_216_2016

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

the judgment dated 24.02.2016 in O.A.A.No.145 of 2008 on the

file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at

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 equally entitled to

withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 14.02.2024 dgr