Telangana High Court
Lakshmi vs Union Of India on 8 January, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.496 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
-
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellants/applicants being aggrieved by the Judgment dated
29.09.2016 passed in O.A.II(U).No.264 of 2008, on the file of
Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad
(hereinafter be referred as "the Tribunal") whereunder, the
application filed by the appellants under Section 16 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- with interest from the Respondent-Railways, was
dismissed by the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the deceased-
L.Veeranna used to work as Constable in CRPF and was posted
at Muzaffarpur, Bihar. He came to his house on leave and had
to join his duty on 07.09.2007. With a view to see his elder
sister who is residing at Bangalore and from there in order to
join his duty, he left the house on the night of 02.09.2007 and
reached Guntakal Railway Station. After purchasing II Class
journey ticket, he boarded Train No.6529 Mumbai CST-
MGP,J
Bangalore Udyan Express in general compartment in the
presence of his maternal uncle. After departure of the said
train, his maternal uncle returned home from the said railway
station. While travelling, due to heavy rush of passengers, he
suddenly slipped and fell down accidentally from the
compartment at Gooty railway station and consequently
sustained severe head injury along with multiple injuries.
Immediately, the concerned railway station staff and railway
doctor examined him and declared him as dead at 1.30 hours
on the intervening night of 2nd/3rd September, 2007. The P.S.,
Gooty, Guntakal District registered a case in Crime No.45 of
2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. As the applicants are
dependants of the deceased, they filed an application claiming
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest from the
Respondent -Railways.
4. The respondent-Railways filed their written statement
contending that there is no journey ticket found with the
deceased showing that he travelled from Guntakal to Bangalore
which shows that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger and
further, there is no eye witness to the incident and hence prayed
to dismiss the claim against them.
MGP,J
5. On behalf of the applicants, AW1 and AW2 were examined
and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the
respondent, none of the witnesses were examined. However,
Report of the Divisional Railway Manager was marked on their
behalf.
6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire
evidence and documents available on record, dismissed the
claim application of the applicants.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is preferred by
the appellants/applicants.
8. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants/applicants as well as the learned Standing Counsel
for respondent-Railways.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants
is that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the
application of the appellants without proper appreciation of
provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The appellants
claimed that the finding of the Tribunal that deceased was not a
bonafide passenger is a gross error. The Tribunal adopted a
narrow approach inspite of the fact that the act under which the
application filed by the appellants was a beneficial piece of
MGP,J
legislation. The Tribunal could have adopted a liberal approach
and granted compensation and therefore prayed to set-aside the
judgment of the learned Tribunal and awarded a reasonable
compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a train
accident.
10. 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.
11. Now the point for determination is
1.Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation?
2. Whether the respondent-Railways is liable to pay the
said compensation?
POINT:-
12. 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 and had not boarded the Train NO.6529 Mumbai
CST-Bangalore Udyan Express in General Compartment. In
this regard it is pertinent to mention that Ex.A1-Copy of FIR
reveals that on 02.09.2007, when the Deputy Station
MGP,J
Superintendent, Gooty was on his duty during night hours, at
about 01.45 hours, one Kumar, who is an Employee working in
RMS, Gooty, came to Station and informed him that one
passenger slipped and fell down at 1.10 hours near Eastern side
of Lavatories at the end of PF.No.1 of Gooty from the Train
No.6529 which goes to Bangalore. He shifted him outside the
track with the help of some passengers, made a phone call to
108 Ambulance and when they are ready to take him to the
hospital, one G.Krishnavenamma, Railway Doctor of Gooty came
and declared the said person as Dead. Further, the opinion
expressed by the panchayatdars, who conducted inquest under
Ex.A2 shows that the deceased, in order to go to Bangalore to
see his elder sister and from there to join his duty at Bihar, left
his house on the night of 02.09.2007 and reached Guntakal
Railway Station from Aluru and boarded the Train No.6529
Udyan Express to go to Bangalore and was accidentally got
slipped and fallen down from the Train No.6529 of Mumbai-
Bangalore Udyan Express on PF.No.1 of Gooty Railway Station
on the intervening night of 02/03-09-2007 at 01.10 hours,
sustained blood injuries and died. He was last seen alive by
Mulla Sanjeev Kumar, who is working in the Gooty RMS and Sri
Chandrasekhar Reddy, who is working as Lecturer. The inquest
MGP,J
report further reveals that the deceased wore military uniform
and in the right shirt pocket, his ID card with photograph was
found. On the opposite railway track from where the dead body
was lying, leave certificate of the deceased was also found which
shows that the deceased has to join duty on 07.09.2007. SBI
pass book, ATM card and some other papers were also found
besides diary containing phone number. Further, the post
mortem examination under Ex.A3 also reveals that the deceased
died due to multiple rib fractures and Haemorragic shock which
are caused due to 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 and thereby, he was a bonafide passenger.
13. 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
2018 ACJ 2849
MGP,J
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.
14. Moreover, in Shaik Mahboob Basha and others v. Union of
India2, 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 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
2016 ACJ 1882
MGP,J
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 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."
MGP,J
15. 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."
16. In the case on hand, the applicants have adduced
evidence of AWs1 and 2 along with the documentary evidence in
the form of Exs.A1 to A7 and thus, they have discharged their
initial burden. Moreover, the report submitted by Inspector,
RPF, Gooty also shows that one M.Sanjeeva Kumar, who is
working as GDSS in R.M.S. Office, Gooty, stated that on
02/03.09.2007, while he was on duty, the train No.6529
Express arrived Gooty at 01.05 hours and he collected tapals
and the said train left at 01.10 hours. Upon leaving the station
3 AIR 2017 SC 1436
MGP,J
he found one male passenger fallen down from the running
train at the end of PF-1 between Track and Platform towards
Anantapur side. He also stated that he, with the help of some
persons, brought the victim on to the PF. Sr.MS/GY attended
the victimized at 1.30 hrs and declared that the victim was
dead. Upon enquiry, they found that the deceased was working
as Constable in CRPF at Bihar who had fallen down from a
running train, sustained injuries and died on the spot.
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.
17. 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 leaned Tribunal. Hence, the applicants are
entitled for compensation.
18. Coming to the quantum of compensation, in case of death
in an accident which occurred before amendment i.e., on
MGP,J
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,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants are
entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for death of the
deceased.
19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed
and the order Judgment dated 29.09.2016 passed in
O.A.II(U).No.264 of 2008, 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.
20. Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.08.01.2024
ysk
