Telangana High Court
Jathikeerthala Anjaneyulu, Guntur ... vs The Union Of India, Secunderabad on 28 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.241 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed under Section 23
of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 aggrieved by the
Judgment dated 15.09.2016 in OA II (U) No.125 of 2009 passed by
the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench, at
Secunderabad, wherein the claim petition filed by the applicant
claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of his father
late Sri. Jathikeerthala Masthan alias Chinna Ghanni (for brevity
hereinafter called as 'deceased'), was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred as per their array before the learned "Tribunal".
3. The applicant being the minor son of the deceased
represented by his paternal uncle Jethikirtala Ganesh @ Peda
Ghanni filed the claim application seeking compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- under Section 124-A of the Railway Act on account
of death of his father late Sri. Jathikeerthala Masthan alias Chinna
Ghanni in an alleged untoward incident while traveling from
Repalle to Tenali by passenger train.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.09.2008 the
deceased with an intention to go to his native place i.e., Tenali,
purchased a general journey ticket bearing No.27538168 worth
Rs.6/- at 12:12 noon from Repalli to Tenali and boarded train
bearing No. 128/129 Passenger train at Repalli railway station at
about 17:50 hours. However, due to heavy rush and jerks, the
deceased, who was standing at the footsteps of the general
compartment while trying to go inside, accidentally fell down from
the running train at Repalli Railway Stations, sustained grievous
injuries and died at the spot. It is further stated that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident. The
father of the applicant died leaving behind his only son as
dependant who is being represented by his paternal uncle Sri.
Jethikirtala Ganesh alias Peda Ghanni, as guardian in the claim
application.
5. The respondent filed their written statement denying the
claim of the applicant and the brief averments of the written
statement are as under:
a) The said incident which occurred on 30.09.2008 is not a
accidental fall from the train and rather it is a clear case of suicide
committed under the influence of alcohol by the deceased and
thus, the said willful act of deceased does not fall under the
definition of 'untoward incident' as per Section 123 (c) (2) of the
Railways Act, 1989 (for short, "the Railways Act") and deceased
was not a bona fide passenger.
b) It is further contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly
considered that as per Ex.R-1 DRM report, Exs. A-1 and A-2 and
statement of railway guard of the train bearing No. 128 passenger
train categorically prove that on the alleged date of accident, the
train reached Repalle Railway station at 17:30 hours and when the
train was in motion the deceased intentionally came under the said
moving train and died on the spot, which is criminal act and a
crystal clear case of suicide.
c) During the course of investigation it was observed in Ex.A-2
Inquest report, that the ticket which is alleged to be in possession
of the deceased was issued at 12:12 hours, whereas the deceased
died at about 17:30 hours and in between the time of purchase of
ticket and the time of accident two passenger trains were passed
from Repalle Station but the deceased did not choose to board the
train for the reasons best known to the deceased, which create
suspicious as to genuineness of the claim application.
d) The applicant has to prove that the victim was a bona fide
passenger as laid down under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act,
1989 and accordingly, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the
claim application.
6. Before the Tribunal, the guardian of the minor applicant
was examined as AW1 and got marked Ex. A1 to A8. Ex.A-1 is the
attested copy of First Information Report, Ex.A-2 is the attested
copy of Inquest report, Ex.A-3 is the attested copy of Post Mortem
report, Ex.A-4 is the copy of Death Certificate, Ex.A-5 is the copy of
Death Certificate of wife of deceased. Ex.A-6 is the copy of ration
card, Ex.A-7 is the copy of acknowledgement/ resident copy of
Aadhar card, Ex.A-8 is the copy of study certificate of applicant.
7. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined. However,
Ex.R-1 DRM report was marked.
8. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed
the following issues:
1. Whether the Application is maintainable?
2. Whether the applicant is dependent of the deceased?
3. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of
train No.128/129, while traveling from Repalli to
Tenali on 30.04.2008?
4. Whether the deceased died as a result of an
untoward incident of accidental fall from the said
train?
5. Whether the applicant is entitled to the compensation
as claimed by them in the application?
6. To what relief?
9. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by both the sides and having not been satisfied with the
evidence adduced by the applicant, the learned Tribunal dismissed
the claim application. Aggrieved by the said order, applicant has
preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside the
said judgment and prayed to allow the appeal and award an
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest as compensation.
10. Heard Shri S. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Smt. K Mani Deepika, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Railway and perused the entire
record.
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
is that he had proved his case by adducing oral evidence and by
relying upon the documents filed under Exs.A-1 to A-8, but the
learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the facts and
circumstances and the material available on record, dismissed the
claim petition fastening the negligence on the deceased. Learned
counsel also contends that the learned Tribunal failed to
appreciate the fact that the deceased purchased a valid ticket
bearing No.27538168 in order to board passenger train from
Repalli to Tenali and this very fact has been categorically
mentioned in column No.XV of Ex.A-2 inquest report, which indeed
prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an
untoward incident. Learned counsel for appellant further argued
that the respondent Railways did not examine any witness and the
Ex.R-1 DRM Report was marked at the flag end of the claim
petition which is in contradiction with Section 113 of the Railways
Act, which obligates the Railway authorities to conduct a fair
enquiry soon after the incident. It was further contended by the
learned counsel for the appellant that they have proved their case
by examining AW1 and relying on documents under Exs.A1 to A8,
but the learned Tribunal without considering the same has
erroneously dismissed the claim application on the ground that the
applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger and died in an untoward incident and also failed to
prove the relationship and authority of guardian to represent the
minor son of the deceased. Thus, the applicant prayed to allow the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent Railways has submitted that the learned Tribunal after
considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the claim
application and the interference of this Court with the order
passed by the learned Tribunal is unwarranted and prayed to
dismiss the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal at threshold.
13. The point for consideration before this Court are:
Point -I Whether the deceased died in an untoward
incident or it is case of suicide?
Point No-II If so, whether the appellant being minor son
of the deceased represented by the guardian is entitled
for compensation as contemplated under Section 124-A of
the Railways Act, 1989?
14. AW1 is the paternal uncle of the appellant i.e., minor son of
the deceased and he has reiterated the averments of the
application in his chief-examination. He deposed that the
deceased purchased a general passenger journey ticket from
Repalle to Tenali at 12:21 noon hours and boarded the passenger
train at about 17:50 hours and due to heavy rush, the deceased
was standing at the footsteps of the compartment to go inside and
meanwhile due to jerks he accidentally fell down and died on the
spot due to multiple injuries.
15. As per the respondent Railways, the said incident is clearly a
case of suicide and not an untoward incident as contended by the
appellant in his claim application. Respondent Railways relied
upon Ex.R-1 DRM report to prove that the deceased intentionally
fell before the running train. It was stated that the railway guard of
the train bearing No. 128 passenger train has categorically stated
that on the alleged date of accident the train reached Repalle
Railway station at 17:30 hours and when the train was in motion
the deceased intentionally came under the said moving train and
he was in a drunken state at the time of alleged incident and due
to fall he sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Further,
it was also stated that as per Ex.A-2 Inquest report, the ticket
which is alleged to be in possession of the deceased was issued at
12:12 hours, whereas the deceased died at about 17:30 hours and
in between the time of purchase of ticket and the time of accident
two passenger trains have passed from Repalli station at 13:50 and
15:40 hours, but the deceased not boarded both these trains, if at
all he has any intension to travel and reach his destination he
would have boarded any of these two passenger trains, but he did
not choose to board the train for reasons best know to him.
Therefore, the case at the hand is clearly a suicidal case and not
an 'untoward incident' for which Railway authorities are not
responsible to pay any compensation as per Railways Act.
16. It is significant to observe that Ex. A-1 First Information
Report, is lodged based on the complaint given by Assistant Station
Master Repalle, who is a railway employee and Ex. A-2 Inquest
Report was prepared based on the spot panchanama by Railway
authorities and authorities have not examined any witness neither
loco pilot nor guard of the train to prove the statements and
opinions so formed in inquest report to disprove the version of
appellant in his claim application. Thus, mere stating or forming
an opinion would not suffice. Even for a moment, if it is assumed
that two trains have passed in between the time of purchase of
ticket and boarding of train by the deceased, it would be for any
personal reasons. It is quite known fact that many trains run
beyond their expected time of arrival and there may be chance of
missing trains due to some pre-occupied personal works by the
deceased after purchasing a valid journey ticket, which is nothing
to do with the claim application and such stand by railways cannot
be countenanced in a beneficial legislation. Moreover, it is to be
seen that in most of the trains especially in general compartments
the crowd will be so heavy that some times passengers cannot
board such trains and they will be compelled to catch the next
train to reach their respective destinations. Even in the case on
hand, prior to his death, the deceased was at the foot steps of the
compartment. From this an inference can be drawn that the
general compartment, which was boarded by the deceased was
heavy. Even assuming for a moment that the deceased was having
any intension to commit suicide, he will not buy train journey
ticket in railway counter and wait till late evening to commit
suicide. Thus, in absence of any evidence by railway authorities to
prove that the deceased committed suicide, the contention of
railway authorities cannot be acceptable.
17. Furthermore, the Railway authority has taken a specific plea
that the deceased was in drunken state, but on perusal of contents
of EX.A-3 i.e., the Post Mortem Report does not contain any
remarks regarding alcohol content being found in the body of the
deceased. In such circumstance of ambiguity as to the statement
of Railway authorities and averments by the appellant, the post
mortem report, which was given by a competent medical officer,
will have some credence in the eyes of law.
18. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the
applicant categorically establish that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger and he died due to accidental fall from the running
train.
19. Learned standing counsel for Railways though vehemently
contended that the accident was not an 'untoward incident' and
deceased might have committed suicide, but no evidence was
adduced on behalf of the respondent to prove that the deceased
intentionally fell down in front of running train and died because of
suicide or as a result of self-inflicted injuries or by his own
criminal act or that the death was caused by any natural means or
medical or under the influence of alcohol. Further, it was observed
in Ex.R1 that the guard of the train stated that the deceased
intentionally came under the said moving train and run over, died
at the spot. Based on Ex.R1 DRM report and relying on the
statements of Train Guard (Sri. K Lokanath) and statement of
ASIPF/Guntur Post (Sri. M. Durga Prasad) the railway authorities
concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and it
is case of suicide.
20. On perusal of Ex.R1 DRM report, there is no averment to the
extent that the deceased has committed suicide or criminal act.
Further, it is significant to observe that the only version that was
considered by the railway authorities was the version of Train
Guard by name Sri. K Lokanath, who stated that one male person
aged about 60 years intentionally came in front of moving train
and died on the spot. On perusal of entire DRM Report, there is no
iota of remarks about documentary evidence relied upon by the
applicants under Exs.A1 to A8, which clearly demonstrates that
the deceased was traveling in the train and during his journey, he
accidentally fell down from the moving train, which caused the
death of the deceased. 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. Sreenivasa Rao and another v. Union of India,
Secunderabad 1, 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 present case also, the railway authorities have
failed to conduct enquiry immediately after the accident in
pursuance of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of
CMA No.862 of 2017 decided on 22.04.2022
Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. Though the accident occurred on
30.04.2008, only after filing of the claim application by the
applicant on 30.04.2009, the railway authorities have prepared the
DRM Report on 15.12.2009 i.e., beyond the prescribed period of 60
days. The above said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of
the case on hand. Except the assumptions and presumptions, the
respondent has not placed any evidence except relying on Ex.R1
DRM Report.
22. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward
incident happened on 30.04.2008. Therefore, from the above
discussion and the decision referred to supra, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the applicant has established that the
deceased died in an untoward incident.
23. Point II: Now, coming to the significant issue of the case
on hand, the learned Tribunal observed that the appellant being
minor was represented by his paternal uncle named Sri.
Jethikirtala Ganesh alias Peda Ghanni. However, he did not file
any proof to establish that under what authority he is representing
the appellant before the learned Tribunal in the capacity of
guardian and held application is not tenable under the law. It is
pertinent to note that the appellant filed Ex. A-6 copy of ration
card issued by the competent authority wherein the deceased his
wife and appellant i.e. minor son name and photographs was
categorically mentioned and subsequently, the mother of minor
appellant died on 02.03.2009. In support of this appellant also
filed Ex. A-5 death certificate of wife of the deceased and mother of
the appellant named Narsamma. Although the paternal uncle of
the minor represented as guardian in the claim application without
filing any proof to establish his capacity to represent as a
guardian, it would not disentitle the appellant, who is the son of
the deceased to claim compensation for the death of his father in
an untoward incident. Perusal of record shows that at the time of
filing claim application the minor son of the deceased was aged
about 13 years and at the time of filing this appeal he was aged
about 17 years and by now he has attained majority. Therefore, in
view of the same this Court is of the considered opinion that the
minor son of the deceased, who has attained majority is entitled to
compensation in the capacity of dependent as stipulated under the
Act. It is settled principle of law that if two interpretations are
possible, the interpretation that is beneficial to the applicants has
to be preferred, as the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is enacted to
protect the interests of the passengers. Similar view was taken by
the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar 2.
24. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down in the above said
decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Railway
Claims Tribunal without considering all these aspects came to the
wrong conclusion by dismissing the claim application of the
applicant and hence, the said findings of the Tribunal are hereby
set aside holding that the appellant is entitled for compensation as
the deceased died in an 'Untoward Incident'.
25. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, in case of
death in an accident which occurred before amendment i.e., on
30.04.2008, 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, applicant is
entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
(2008) 9 SCC 527
26. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and
the order dated 15.09.2016 in OA II (U) No.125 of 2009 passed by
the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench, at
Secunderabad is set aside and thereby compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- is awarded to the applicant. 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 is entitled to
withdraw the said compensation without furnishing any security.
No order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 28.02.2024
AS
