Telangana High Court
Lalith Man Singh Bora And Another vs Union Of India on 19 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1080 OF 2019
J U D G M E N T:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by applicants under
Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for short
'Act') aggrieved by Order dated 03.06.2014 in M.A.No.8 of 2014 in
Review Petition No.6 of 2014 in OAA No.139 of 2008 (impugned
Order) on the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal
Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal'), wherein the claim application filed by applicants
claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Sri
Kailash Singh Bora (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), was
dismissed.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties
are referred as per their array before the learned Tribunal.
03. The brief facts of the case are that applicant Nos.1 and
2 who are parents of the deceased filed a claim application under
Section 16 of the Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the
Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on
account of death of the deceased in an untoward incident.
04. According to applicants, on 06.08.2007 the deceased
was arrived at Delhi from his work place Uttarakashi and
informed to applicants about his arrival at Delhi and also about
leaving to Chennai on official work and return to Delhi on
30.08.2007. On 30.08.2007 applicant received a phone call from
Railway Police Ballarshah stating that some articles, documents
and a mobile phone was seized in S8 berth No.6 from Tamilnadu
Express at Ballarshah Railway Station. They were also informed
that one person from Tamilnadu Express from Chennai to New
Delhi in S8 berth No.6 was fallen accidentally between
Jammikunta and Uppal Railway Stations in Andhra Pradesh while
the train was running and advised to meet the Railway Police,
Kazipet/Warangal and also to collect the seized articles.
Immediately, one of the relative Mr.Harish Rautela met the
Railway Police, Kazipet/Warangal and upon showing the corpse
the deceased was identified as Mr.Kailash Singh Bora. A case in
FIR No.283 of 2007 was registered by Railway Police, Kazipet and
the corpse was carried to Delhi on 31.08.2007 for last rites.
05. It is further contended by applicants that the deceased
was their only son and they are depending upon him and that he
was a bonafide passenger of Tamilnadu Express travelling from
Chennai to New Delhi with valid ticket and died in the untoward
incident. Hence, applicants filed claim application seeking
compensation from respondent for the death of the deceased.
06. Respondent filed written statement denying the
averments of the claim application and contended that there is no
cause of action for applicants as the claim does not fall within the
ambit of Section 123(c) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Respondent also denied the manner of the accidental fall of the
deceased from the train. It is contended that the deceased was
not having valid journey ticket and the incident must have
happened due to the own imprudent, criminal negligence and
reckless acts of the deceased, which amounts to self-inflicted
injury, which falls under exception (b) and (c) to Section 124-A of
the Railways Act, 1989 and that respondent is not liable to pay
compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim application.
07. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues:
i. Whether applicant are dependants of the deceased?
ii. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of
train Tamilnadu Express while travelling from Chennai
to New Delhi?
iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward
incident of accidental fall from the said train?
iv. To what relief?
08. Before the learned Tribunal, in order to substantiate
their claim, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of respondent, their officials were
examined as RW1 to RW3 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.
09. After considering both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim
application of applicants vide Order dated 05.04.2013 in OAA
No.139 of 2008 and applicants filed an application in M.A.No.8 of
2014 in Review Petition No.6 of 2014 in OAA No.139 of 2008
seeking to reopen the matter for reviewing decision in OAA No.139
of 2008 and the same was also dismissed vide Order dated
03.06.2014. Aggrieved by the same, applicants have preferred the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. Heard Smt. G.Uma Rani, learned counsel for the
appellants-applicants and Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, learned Standing
Counsel for Respondent and perused the record.
11. The main contention of learned counsel for applicants-
appellants is that though applicants have proved their case by
adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon
the Exs.A1 to A11, the learned Tribunal without considering the
same erred in dismissing the claim application. Hence, prayed to
allow this Appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.
12. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent argued that after considering all the aspects the
Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application and the
interference of this Court is unwarranted and prayed to dismiss
the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
13. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether impugned Order passed by learned Tribunal
is liable to be set aside and if so, whether applicants
are entitled for compensation as claimed for?
P O I N T:
14. This Court perused the documents and evidence
placed on record by both the sides.
15. Applicant No.1 who is father of the deceased was
examined as AW1 and he reiterated the contents of claim
application and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of
respondent, RW1 to R3 were examined. RW1-Train Ticket
Inspector, Kazipet deposed that he worked for Tamilnadu Express
on 30.08.2007 from Vijayawada to Ballarsha (Train No.2621 UP)
and checked S10 to S13 after crossing Warangal. At that time, he
was called by Train Superintendent and asked to come to S5 and
informed him that one male passenger fell down from train in
between Uppal and Jammikunta Railway Station and that train
was not stopped and there was no ACP to the train. The Train
Superintendent checked the chart pertaining to S8 coach and
found that passenger of berth No.6 is missing and the name of the
passenger is Mr. Kailash Singh Bora. He further deposed that at
about 08:00 AM., the said passenger was travelling by sitting at
the door. During the course of cross examination, he admitted
that the person fell down from the train while travelling in a
reserved compartment.
16. RW2-Deputy Station Superintendent, Kazipet deposed
that on 30.08.2007 at 09:30 AM., he received telephonic message
from duty Deputy Station Superintendent, Uppal that a male
person fallen down from Train No.2621 Express (Tamilnadu
Express) at KM No.340/25-27 on upline between Uppal and
Jammikunta Railway Stations. During the course of cross-
examination, RW2 stated that all the documents pertaining to
message, including the original, were spoiled due to falling of
water from overhead water tank adjacent to the store room
situated on 2nd floor of Kazipet Railway Station.
17. RW3-Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection
Force, Kazipet, deposed that he examined witnesses i.e., Mr.
P.Madhu Mohan, TTE, Kazipet and Mr. G. Ashok Babu, Head
Constable, RPF and their statements clearly shows that the
deceased travelled by sitting at the door and the staff of train
already warned the deceased not to sit at the door of running
train. During the course of cross-examination, RW3 admitted that
the deceased was having valid ticket and travelled in the reserved
compartment.
18. It is pertinent to state that appellants apart from oral
evidence, also relied upon documentary evidence in Exs.A1 to
A11. A perusal of Ex.A1-First Information Report discloses that
shows that a case in FIR No.283 of 2007 was registered by
Railway Police, Kazipet and took up investigation. After
completing investigation, Final report under Ex.A4 was laid. A
perusal of Final report shows that no foul play was suspected and
it was concluded that the death was accidental. A perusal of
inquest report under Ex.A2 also shows that inquest was done in
the presence of panch witnesses to the inquest report, wherein at
column No.15 it is mentioned that the deceased fallen accidentally
from 2621 Tamilnadu Express prior to 10:30 hours on 30.08.2007
at KM No. 340/25-27 between Uppal and Jammikunta Railway
Stations in drainage and the deceased sustained head injury and
died. Ex.A3-Postmortem examination report also shows that the
death of the deceased was due to head injury and other multiple
injuries. Ex.A5-Death certificate of the deceased, Ex.A6-Copy of
Voter ID card of the deceased, Ex.A7-Copy of Voter ID card of
applicant No.1, Ex.A8-Copy of High School Certificate of the
deceased, Ex.A9-Copy of Family Members Register, Ex.A10 and
A11-Saving Bank Pass Books of appellants.
19. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute
regarding the travel of the deceased in the train No.2621
Tamilnadu Express and died due to accidentally fall from the said
train. The only contention of learned Standing Counsel for
Railways is that the deceased fallen due to his own negligent act.
It is important to note that the deceased had purchased valid
ticket for traveling in reserved compartment. Therefore, there is
no need for the deceased to travel by standing near the door. As it
is a reserved compartment there is no rush of passengers in the
train. Moreover, there is no eyewitness to the incident. Under
these circumstances, it is clear that there is no dispute that the
deceased fell down from train and was holding valid journey
ticket. Therefore, he can be termed as bona fide passenger, who
accidentally fell down from running train and the same is clearly
established. Hence, the contention of the learned Standing
Counsel for Railways that the deceased died by his own act of
negligence by sitting at door of reserved compartment, is
unsustainable.
20. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim application
merely on the aspect that appellants are not the dependents of the
deceased. Applicants who are parents of the deceased are aged
about 51 and 46 years respectively as on the date of filing claim
application in the year 2008. In Ex.A6-Copy of Voter ID card of
the deceased and Ex.A8-Copy of High School Certificate of the
deceased, name of applicant No.1 is shown as father of the
deceased. Ex.A9-Copy of Family Members Register, Ex.A10 and
A11-Saving Bank Pass Books of appellants, are establishing the
relationship between the deceased and applicants that they are
parents of the deceased. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding
relationship between the deceased and applicants. It is relevant to
extract Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989:
"(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature
described in section 124;
(b) "dependant" means any of the following relatives
of a deceased passenger, namely:
(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case
the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his
parent;
(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister,
widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor
child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or
partly on the deceased passenger;
(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if
wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;
(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on
the deceased passenger;(c)"untoward incident"
means--(1)(i)the commission of a terrorist act within the
meaning of sub-section (1) of section (3) of the Terrorist
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of
1987); or(ii)the making of a violent attack or the
commission of robbery or dacoity; or(iii)the indulging in
rioting, shoot-out or arson,by any person in or on any
train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak
room or reservation or booking office or on any platform
or in any other place within the precincts of a railway
station; or(2)the accidental falling of any passenger
from a train carrying passengers."
21. As per Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989, it is
clear that if the deceased is unmarried his parents are his
dependents. In the present case on hand, applicant Nos.1 and 2
are the father and mother of the deceased. After considering the
above oral and documentary evidence, it can be safely concluded
that applicants are the parents of the deceased. Therefore, in view
of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from
perversity and interference of this Court into the said findings, is
necessary. The learned Tribunal has committed error in
dismissing the claim application filed by applicants and the claim
application is liable to be allowed by granting compensation to
applicants.
22. 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.4,00,000/-, which has been subsequently enhanced to
Rs.8,00,000/- as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward
Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. Therefore,
this Court is of the considered opinion that applicants are entitled
for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for death of the deceased.
23. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed
and Order dated 03.06.2014 in M.A.No.8 of 2014 in Review
Petition No.6 of 2014 in OAA No.139 of 2008 (impugned Order) on
the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad
Bench at Secunderabad, is set aside and applicants are granted
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Respondent-Railways is hereby
directed to deposit the compensation before the learned Tribunal
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this Judgment. On such deposit, applicants are equally entitled
to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 19-MAR-2024
KHRM
