Telangana High Court
Kareema Begum vs Union Of India on 24 October, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.492 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant No.2, the
mother of the deceased aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.04.2018 passed in
O.A.II. (U).No.287 of 2011 by the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short
"Tribunal") for dismissing the claim application filed by them.
2. The parents of the deceased filed an application before the Railway
Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs with interest from the
respondent - Railways for the death of their son Md.Hameed @ Ahmed Pasha
in an untoward incident that occurred on 14.06.2011. During the pendency of
the case, the applicant No.1 died.
3. The case of the applicants was that the deceased Md.Hameed @ Ahmed
Pasha was a resident of Mahabubnagar, aged 26 years working as a daily wage
worker. On 14.06.2011, with a view to go to the house of his relatives at
Hyderabad on personal work, the deceased Md.Hameed along with his elder
brother Md.Abdul Bari went to Mahabubnagar Railway Station in the morning
hours and purchased a passenger train journey ticket from Mahabubnagar to
Kachiguda for himself at Rs.17/- and another ticket from Mahabubnagar to
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
Jadcherla for his elder brother and they both boarded train No.57436, Kurnool
Town - Secunderabad passenger in a General compartment. Md.Adbul Bari, the
elder brother of the deceased got down from the train at Jadcherla Railway
Station. The deceased Md.Hameed proceeded for further journey in the same
train.
3.1. It was further submitted in the claim petition that while travelling, as
there was heavy rush of passengers in the compartment, Md.Hameed slipped
and fell down accidentally from the running train at kilometer No.84/01
between Gollapally and Balanagar Railway Stations near Rajapur Nala Bridge
due to speed and sudden jerks of the running train and in the result sustained
multiple fatal injuries, lost heavy blood and died on the spot. They further
submitted that the passenger train journey ticket was lost in the aforesaid
accident, as his clothes were badly torn, as he was dragged by the train.
4. The respondent - Railways filed written statement disputing the claim of
the applicants and contended that the claim does not fall within the ambit of
Section 123-C or Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. They
contended that the Investigating Officer, who conducted inquest stated in
columns IX-XV that the deceased while travelling in an un-known train,
suddenly jumped from the train to commit suicide when the train was
approaching kilometer No.84/1 at bridge No.178. As such, the death of the
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
deceased was not due to accidental fall from the train. It was a clear case of
suicide. As such, the Railway Administration was not liable to pay any
compensation in view of proviso (a) to Section 124-A of the Railways Act,
1989. They further contended that the applicants had not produced the journey
ticket and as per the inquest report also, the deceased was not possessing
journey ticket. Therefore, the deceased could not be treated as a bonafide
passenger. The respondent - Railways was not liable to pay any compensation,
much less any interest in the circumstances of the case and prayed to dismiss the
application.
5. Basing on the said pleadings, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed the
issues as follows:
(i) Whether the applicants were dependants of the deceased?
(ii) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train in question and died
as a result of an untoward incident?
(iii) Whether the applicants were entitled to compensation as claimed and to
what relief?
6. The applicant No.1, the father of the deceased was examined as AW.1.
The elder brother of the deceased, who travelled along with the deceased from
Mahabubnagar to Jadcherla was examined as AW.2 and Exs.A1 to A8 were
marked on behalf of the applicants. Subsequently after the death of the
applicant No.1, the mother of the deceased, the applicant No.2 was examined as
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
AW.3 and Exs.A9 and A10 were marked through her. The Guard of the train
was examined as RW.1 by the Railways and the Divisional Railway Manager's
Report (for short "DRM" report) was marked as Ex.R1.
7. The Tribunal on considering the oral evidence of AWs.1 to 3 and the
documentary evidence marked under Exs.A5 to A10 held issue No.1 observing
that the applicants were parents and dependants of the deceased. With regard to
issue No.2, the Tribunal on considering that no journey ticket of the deceased
was filed by the applicants along with the claim application and the Government
Railway Police (for short "GRP") did not find any journey ticket with the
deceased at the time of inquest, held that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger. Further relying upon the inquest report, wherein it was noted that
the deceased jumped from the running train and committed suicide and died and
the Railway Guard examined as RW.1 stated in his evidence that he did not
notice any fall in between Gollapally and Balanagar Railway Stations and did
not get any information from any person about the fall from the running train
and did not observe any jerks and jolts of the train in the section between
Kurnool Town to Secunderabad and the DRM report marked under Ex.R1 also
concluded that there were no eye-witnesses to the incident and the train was not
subjected to alarm chain pulling at the spot, observed that the cause of death
was due to the deceased jumping from the train and committing suicide, as
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
such, the applicants were not entitled for any compensation and dismissed the
claim application.
8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal passed
on 12.04.2018, the applicant No.2, the mother of the deceased preferred this
appeal.
9. Heard Ms.N.S.Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellant and
Ms.G.Rukmini, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Railways.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal had shown
a narrow minded approach while adjudicating the claim and erroneously
considered the provision of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and erred
in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the death of
the deceased was not due to fall from the train and would not come under
untoward incident. The Tribunal grossly erred in appreciating the evidence on
record and discarded the prima facie documents filed by the applicants and
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Doli Rani Saha v.
Union of India 1, of this Court in C.M.A.No.862 of 2017 dated 22.04.2022 and
of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Union of India v. A.Geetha and
others2 and in Sunitha C. and others v. Union of India 3, and of the common
2024 INSC 603
2018 ACJ 941
2017 ACJ 878
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Shaik Mahboob Basha and
others v. Union of India 4.
11. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Railways on the other
hand contended that the Railways would be liable to pay compensation only in
case of bonafide passengers, who became victims of untoward incident. The
deceased did not possess a valid ticket and he could not be considered as a
bonafide passenger. A person, who intentionally jumps of a moving train and
suffers injuries / death on account of his own criminal negligence, would not be
entitled to compensation on account of an untoward incident. The proviso to
Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 specifically excludes the acts of
criminal negligence. As such, the appellant is not entitled for any compensation
and the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application and no interference was
required by this Court to set aside the same.
12. Now the points for consideration in deciding the appeal are:
(1) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and whether he died in an
untoward incident?
(2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal was in accordance with law or
requires any interference by this Court?
2016 ACJ 1882
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
POINT No.(1):
Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and whether he died in an
untoward incident?
13. The applicants got examined AWs.1 and 2 to prove that the deceased
travelled in a passenger train from Mahabubnagar to Kachiguda. AW.1 was the
father of the deceased. He filed his evidence affidavit stating that with a view to
go to the house of his relatives at Hyderabad on personal work, his son
(deceased) along with his elder brother Md.Abdul Bari went to Mahabubnagar
Railway Station in the morning hours of 14.06.2011. He admitted that he was
not an eye-witness to the accident.
14. The applicants got examined the elder brother of the deceased Md.Abdul
Bari as AW.2. AW.2 filed his evidence affidavit stating that he along with his
younger brother Md.Hameed @ Ahmed Pasha (deceased) went to
Mahabubnagar Railway Station in the morning hours of 14.06.2011. His
brother purchased a passenger train journey ticket from Mahabubnagar to
Kachiguda for himself at Rs.17/- and another ticket for him from Mahabubnagar
to Jadcherla and they both boarded Train No.57436 Kurnool Town -
Secunderabad Passenger in a General compartment and left. While travelling,
he got down from the train when the train halted at Jadcherla Railway Station,
gave send-off to his brother and left the station after departure of the said train.
He stated that he was attending the work of digging bore well as a supervisor
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
and stayed there at the house of his relatives on that night. His brother
continued his further journey to Kachiguda by the said train. He came to know
through his parents in the evening hours of 15.06.2011 that the Railway Police
informed his parents over cell phone that his brother (deceased) slipped and fell
down accidentally from the running train in between Gollapally and Balanagar
Railway Stations near Rajapur Nala Bridge and succumbed to injuries on the
spot. Police panchanama and P.M.E were already completed before they
reached and after completion of the other formalities, they received the corpse
from the Railway Police. The corpse was brought to their village for the last
rites. He stated that he had not attended the police panchanama and he was not
examined by the Police. It was suggested to this witness that he was not an eye-
witness to the incident and that the ticket of AW.2 was also not filed and that
there were no jerks and jolts to the train and that his brother committed suicide,
which were denied by the witness.
15. Ex.A1 is the FIR bearing No.150 of 2011 registered by the Police
Kachiguda under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The report was given by the Station
Master of Kachiguda Railway Station on 14.06.2011 at 11:40 hours stating that
he received a death message from the key man of Gang No.16 about a male
dead body aged 30 years lying at kilometer No.84/1-2 between Balanagar -
Gollapally Railway Stations near Rajapur Halt Station.
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
16. Ex.A2 is the inquest report, which was stated to have been conducted on
14.06.2011 at the place of occurrence between Rajapur - Gollapally Railway
Stations at kilometer No.84/01 at Rajapur Nala Bridge No.178. As per the
inquest panchanama, none of the blood relatives of the deceased were present at
that time and the Station Master of Kachiguda was shown as complainant and
Balaiah, Gang man was shown as an eye-witness. It was recorded in column
No.IX and column No.XV that the panchayatdars opined that the deceased
before his death while travelling in an un-identified train and when the train
reached Rajapur Nala Railway Bridge (bridge No.178), the deceased wantonly
himself fell down from the train, sustained severe injuries to the head, nose and
face, lost blood heavily and died on the spot. Column No.XXVI of the inquest
would disclose that it was commenced at 04:00 PM and concluded at 06:00 PM.
17. Thus, though there were no eye-witnesses to the incident, it was recorded
in the inquest that the deceased wantonly fell down from the train, which was
moving in speed and opined the cause of death as suicide.
18. Ex.A3 is the PME report, which would disclose that the cause of death of
the deceased was due to cervical spinal injury. The PME was conducted on
15.06.2011 from 12:30 PM to 01:30 PM and the approximate time of death was
recorded as 12-18 hours prior to autopsy.
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
19. The respondents got examined the Guard of the Train No.57436 as RW.1.
He filed his evidence affidavit stating that on 14.06.2011 he worked as a Guard
on the passenger train No.57436 from Kurnool Town to Secunderabad. The
train left Kurnool Town Station at about 05:30 hours and reached Gollapally
Railway Station at about 09:33 hours and left Gollapally Railway Station at
09:50 hours. Thereafter, the train arrived Balanagar Railway Station at 10:08
hours and left at 10:09 hours. He further submitted that during his working on
train No.57436 Passenger, he did not notice any fall in between Gollapally and
Balanagar Railway Stations and did not get any information from any person
about the fall from the train and he did not observe any jerks and jolts in the
section between Kurnool Town to Secunderabad.
20. In his cross-examination, he stated that normally after leaving the Station
he would be inside his cabin till next Station comes and he would not be able to
see if a person falls from a train every time. He admitted that it would not be
possible to see both sides of the train at a time and if anybody falls from the mid
section, he could not notice until and unless informed by someone or someone
pulls the Alarm Chain. He further stated that he was unable to tell, whether the
deceased fell from the said train on that day and he could not say whether the
incident took place in the mid section, so he could not see the incident.
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
21. Thus, his evidence also would disclose that the Guard could not say with
certainty that the deceased did not fall from the train, as there was a chance of
his not witnessing the incident also.
22. The DRM report was marked as Ex.R1. The report was dated
10.02.2012. The report would disclose that on 14.06.2011, Sri Balaiah
Laxmaiah, key man, Gang No.16 stated that while he was on duty at about
10:00 hours, he noticed a male dead body found lying under Bridge No.178 at
kilometer No.84/1-2 between Gollapally and Balanagar Railway Stations and
the key man informed the same to Sri Syed Farid, Station Master of Gollapally
Railway Station. Sri M.J.Ratna Kumar, Passenger Guard, who was examined as
RW.1 in this case, was also examined. He stated that while he was on duty,
neither he noticed nor anybody informed him about anyone falling from the
train in between Gollapally and Balanagar Railway Stations. He also stated that
there were no jerks or jolts noticed between Kurnool Town to Secunderabad. It
was also recorded that there were no eye-witnesses to the incident and the train
was not subjected to Alarm Chain Pulling at the spot or during the time of its
entire journey from Kurnool Town to Secunderabad. The GRP, Kurnool Town
did not find any railway ticket with the deceased person. Basing on the inquest
report at column No.IX, it was opined that the deceased himself jumped from
the train and had committed suicide, as such, it was a clear case of suicide.
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
23. Thus, even from the DRM report, there were no eye-witnesses to the
incident and only basing on assumptions, the panchayatdars opined in the
inquest that the deceased himself jumped from the train and fallen down under
the bridge. However, even as per the inquest, the deceased travelled in the train.
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi in Civil Appeal
No.4945 of 2018 held that:
"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."
25. In the present case, the affidavits of AWs.1 and 2 were filed by the
applicants to discharge the initial burden laid upon them to show that the
deceased travelled in Train No.57436 Passenger in General compartment from
Mahabubnagar to Kachiguda. The case of the applicants was that he
accidentally fell down from a moving train, while the case of the respondents
was that the deceased wantonly jumped from the running train, due to which his
death occurred. As such, the respondent - Railways also admitted that the
deceased travelled in the train. Their contentions vary only with regard to the
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
cause of death of the deceased. No eye witnesses or any passengers travelled in
the General compartment were examined by the respondent - Railways. A duty
was cast upon the Railways to conduct an enquiry immediately with regard to
cause of death. Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of
Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 mandates the Railway Authorities to
investigate into an untoward incident immediately after the incident. But no
such enquiry was conducted by the Railways immediately after the incident and
the enquiry was conducted only after the appellants filed the claim petition
before the Railway Claims Tribunal.
26. The High of Kerala at Ernakulam in Union of India v. A.Geetha and
others (cited supra), held that:
"12. The pleadings of the applicants in the
original application disclose that Sandhya was
travelling alone in the train. Her bag containing
material things including the ticket taken by her
for travelling purpose was lost. Her body was
found on the railway track. It is pertinent to
note that even though disclosure of the facts is
made in the original application, the respondent
has not ventured to controvert those. The
respondent has also no case that any inquiry in
the matter was conducted by them and the
contrary was revealed to them. The only
objections raised were regarding the non-pulling
of the chain by co-passengers and non-
production of the ticket by the claimants. The
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
lady being a passenger not in accompaniment
with any of the original applicants, it is difficult
for the latter to state specifically about the
incident. The attending circumstances being so,
the authorities of the Railways, being in
reachable space to the place of incident, are the
appropriate persons to conduct an inquiry and to
get convinced themselves about the untoward
incident rather than the original applicants, who
were in a remote place at the relevant time. The
authorities of the Railways cannot take
advantage of their inaction to conduct an inquiry
and the in-capacity of the original applicants to
place on record evidence supporting their claim.
In the case on hand, the attending circumstances
drawn out from the pleadings of the original
applicants are leaning in favor of the original
applicants rather than those advanced by the
respondent."
27. In the present case also, the Railway Authorities being in reachable space
to the place of incident are the appropriate persons to conduct an enquiry and to
get convinced themselves about the untoward incident rather than the
applicants, who were in a remote place at the relevant time and the Railways
could not take advantage of their inaction.
28. The evidence of AW.2, the elder brother of the deceased would disclose
that he along with the deceased boarded the passenger train No.57436 at
Mahabubnagar and that he travelled up to Jadcherla along with his brother
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
(deceased) in the same train. The evidence of RW.1, the Guard of the train
would disclose that the train reached Gollapally Railway Station at about 09:33
hours and left Gollapally Railway Station at 09:50 hours. As the inquest report
also would disclose that the incident might have occurred prior to 10:00 hours
on 14.06.2011 between Rajapur - Gollapally Railway Stations at kilometer
No.84/01, which would coincide with the movements of the train, in all
probability, it could be said that the deceased travelled in the said train.
29. The absence of journey ticket alone cannot be a ground to reject the claim
of the applicants, as the ticket could have been lost in the said incident. Section
124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is based on the principle of no fault liability or
strict liability and mere non-recovery of ticket from the possession of the
deceased could not be a ground to deny the benefit under Section 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989. The burden of proof would shift on the Railways to prove
that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the Railways failed to
discharge the said burden.
30. The common High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Shaik
Mahboob Basha and others v. Union of India (cited supra), held that:
"Presumption that generally every passenger holds
a journey ticket unless the contrary is proved is
applicable to the instant case. It is not in dispute
that the dead body of the deceased was dragged to
a distance of about 30 sleepers from the place,
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
where the fall had taken place, and that the
deceased had sustained severe injuries including
traumatic amputation of limbs and had succumbed
to the injuries. Therefore, there is a possibility and
probability of some of the articles on the body of
the deceased not being traced and collected from
the scene. What is important to note is that the
Railways did not mark the copies of the rough
sketch and the observation report of the scene of
accident, if any, prepared by the police to show as
to where the various articles that were found at the
scene were lying at the time of the observation of
the scene. So, this Court is inclined to hold that the
explanation of the applicants that the journey
ticket purchased by the deceased to undertake the
journey from Chennai to Vijayawada on that day
might have been lost can be accepted."
31. The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Sunitha C. and others v.
Union of India (cited supra), wherein also it was alleged by the respondent -
Railways that the deceased jumped off from a moving train and attempted to
commit suicide, it was noted that:
"17. In the instant case, there are no eye
witnesses to the incident. There is no material to
hold that the deceased had any reason to jump
off a moving train and to bring upon himself the
fatal injuries suffered in this case. It is also not
the case of the respondents that there was any
attempt on the part of the deceased to commit
suicide. It is also clear that an untoward incident
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
as defined in the Railways Act had occurred in
the instant case. Since Railway Claims Tribunals
have been set up to consider cases of accidental
death and injury in railway accidents, we are of
the opinion as is fortified by the decisions of the
Apex Court and the various High Courts
including that of this court, that the endeavor of
the Tribunals should not be to deny
compensation to unfortunate victims. In the
above view of the matter, we are of the opinion
that the dismissal of the claim petition is
completely unjustified."
32. Thus, in the present case also, there were no eye-witnesses to the
incident. The cross-examination of AWs.1 and 2 also would not disclose that
the deceased had any reason to jump off from the moving train or to commit
suicide. No panchayatdars who opined about the cause of the death of the
deceased as suicide, were examined before the Railway Claims Tribunal by the
respondents to give an opportunity to the appellants to subject them to cross-
examination.
33. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India (cited
supra) in Civil Appeal No.8605 of 2024 dated 09.08.2024, observed that:
"14. In the present case, the appellant had duly
filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting
to the report arising from the investigation
conducted by the respondent, which showed that
the deceased was travelling on the train and that
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
his death was caused by a fall during the course
of his travel. The burden of proof then shifted to
the Railways, which has not discharged its
burden. Therefore, the presumption that the
deceased was not a bonafide passenger on the
train in question was not rebutted."
34. In the present case also, the appellant had discharged the burden upon her
to prove that the deceased travelled in the train and that his death was caused by
a fall during the course of his travel. The burden of proof shifted to the
Railways and the Railways failed to discharge the said burden. As such, the
presumption that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger on the train in
question was not rebutted. As such, the points are answered accordingly
holding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and his death occurred due
to the accidental fall from the train, which comes under the expression
"untoward incident" and as such the applicants are entitled for compensation for
the death of the deceased.
POINT No.(2):
Whether the order passed by the Tribunal was in accordance with law or
requires any interference by this Court?
35. As the Tribunal based its order basing on the inquest report and the DRM
report without examining any of the inquest panchas before it or the
Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation, for coming to such a
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
conclusion, the order of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. The
Tribunal ignored the object of the enactment, which is a beneficial legisltaiton
and dismissed the claim of the applicants ignoring the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court and various High Courts in the said regard, as to who can be
considered as a bonafide passenger or not even in the absence of a journey
ticket. As the Tribunal based its order on presumptions that the cause of death
of the deceased was due to suicide, it is considered fit to set aside the judgment
of the Tribunal in O.A.II. (U).No.287 of 2011 dated 12.04.2018.
36. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the
order of the Tribunal in O.A.II. (U).No.287 of 2011 dated 12.04.2018 and the
applicant is entitled to compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs along with costs &
interest @ 7 % per annum on the compensation, as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamukayi & others v. Union of India and Others in
Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023 dated 16.05.2023. The respondent - Railways
are directed to deposit the above amount within a period of twelve (12) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the
appellant is entitled to withdraw the said compensation without furnishing any
security.
Dr.GRR, J
cma_492_2018
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any
shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 24th October, 2024
Nsk.
