Kopuri Yalamanda, Krishna Dist & Another Vs Union of India , Secunderabad

¶1

.T

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI ef

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No fin4 nf

¶7

Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 aggrieved by the order dated 21/04/2016 passed in OA II (A) No.4 of 2012 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kopuri Yalamanda, S/o. K. Nagaiah, Occ: Agriculture R/o. H.No.11-63, Anagindlapadu Village, Penugranchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District A.P.

¶10

Kopuri Krupa Varamma, W/o. Kopuri Yalamanda, Occ; Housewife, R/o. H.No.11-63, Anagindlapadu Village, Penugranchiprolu Mandal , Krishna District, A.P.

¶11

...Petitioners/Appellants

¶12

AND

¶13

Union of India, represented by The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

¶14

...Respondent/Plaintiff

¶15

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V Venkata Mayur

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : M/s P. Vijaya Kumar for Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

I >

¶19

1

¶20

BSBJ C.M.A.No.604 of 2016

¶21

APHC010504082016

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶23

[3311]

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶28

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 604/2016

¶29

Between:

¶30

Kopuri Yalamanda, Krishna Dist & Another and Others

¶31

...APPELLANT(S)

¶32

AND

¶33

Union of India Secunderabad

¶34

...RESPONDENT

¶35

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶36

1.V VENKATA MAYUR

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶38

TPasala Ponna Rao, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

2

¶41

BSBJ C.M.A.No.604 of 2016

¶42

r

¶43

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶44

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.604 of 2016

¶45

Between:

¶46

Kopuri Yalamanda, Krishna Dist & Another and
Others

¶47

...APPELLANT(S)

¶48

AND
Union of India Secunderabad
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 03.01.2025

¶49

...RESPONDENT

¶50

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶51

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶52

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order?
2. Whether the copy of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Her Ladyship wish to see the fair copy
of the order?

¶53

Yes/No
Yes/No

¶54

3

¶55

BSBJ C.M.A.No.604 of 2016

¶56

r

¶57

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶58

+Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.604 of 2016

¶59

% 03.01.2025

¶60

Between: Kopuri Yalamanda, Krishna Dist & Another and Others

¶61

...APPELLANT(S)

¶62

AND

¶63

Union of India Secunderabad

¶64

...RESPONDENT

¶65

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 03.01.2025

¶66

Counsel for the appellants ; Sri Venkata Mayur

¶67

Counsel for the Respondents : Deputy Solicitor General of India < Gist:

¶68

Head Note:

¶69

? Cases referred:

¶70

2008 SCO Online P&H 1307

¶71

4

¶72

BSBJ C.M.A.No.604 of 2016

¶73

r

¶74

JUDGMENT;

¶75

This appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the order, dated 21.04.2016, dismissing OA II (A) No.4 of 2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶76

Heard Sr/ Venkat Mayur, learned counsel for the appellants^and Ms. P. Vijaya Kumari, the learned counsel representing^{therespondent/} Union of India/South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

¶77

The appellants, the applicants before the Tribunal, filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims^{TribunalAct,1987} read with Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest from the respondent^railways on account of the death of K. Pallavi W/o Venkata Ramana (hereinafter^referredto

¶78

as the deceased’) in an untoward incident occurred on 30.07.2012. The 1®' appellant is the father-in-law and the 2"'*^{appellantisthemother-} in-law of the deceased.

¶79

According to the appellants, on 29.07.2012, at about^8PM,the deceased along with her husband, late K. Venkata Ramana,^andher mother, Smt. I. Nagamani, accompanied by their son,^{K.Nagaraju,left} their residence by bus to Vijayawada railway station to board train No.12622/Tamilnadu Express to go to Chennai. At about^12.10am,the

¶80

5

¶81

BSBJ C.M.A.No.604 of 2016

¶82

deceased, her husband and her mother boarded the train, After departure of the train from Vijayawada railway station, their son K. Nagaraju returned home. In the morning, while watching television, it was noticed that the train No.12622 Tamilnadu Express caught fire between Nellore and Vedayapalem stations at KMs 175/23-32 and coach No.SII met with the fire accident. Thereupon, the appellants informed their son, K. Nagaraju, to enquire about the status of their son daughter-in-law and her mother who were travelling in S11 coach. K. Nagaraju, along with other relatives, contacted the railway officers. On the DRM, Vijayawada arranging transport facility, they proceeded to Nellore where the dead bodies of K. Venkataramana and his wife, K. Pallavi, were identified by him. The railway authorities handed over the dead bodies to K. Nagaraju.

¶83

The respondent/railways filed written statement before the Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim application and admitting to the extent that the name of the deceased (K.Pallavi) is among those found died in the accident as per the list prepared by the Chief Medical Director, South Central Railway, Secunderabad,^and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as ex gratia.

¶84

On the strength of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues;

L

6

BSBJ C.M.A.No.604 of 2016

¶89

r

¶90

Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident? 3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

¶91

During the trial, the applicant No.1, Kopuri Yalamanda was examined as AW1 and exhibits A1 and A2 were marked^{onbehalfofthe} Exhibit A1 is the death certificate and exhibit A2 is the appellants. Family Member Certificate. On behalf of the respondent,^nowitness was examined and no document was marked.

¶92

On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary,^the Tribunal dismissed the application observing that the^{appellantswhoare} father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased^{arenotbetreated} as ‘dependants’ or ‘legal heirs’ of the deceased. 9. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous^Appeal is preferred.

¶93

The main contention of the appellants is that a liberal interpretation shall be given to the definition of^{‘dependant’} under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 and thereby^{theclaimantswho} are the in-laws of the deceased shall be provided compensation. In this

¶94

7

¶95

BSB, J C.M.A.No.604 of 2016

¶96

regard, the learned counsel for the appellants placed^{relianceonthe} decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dhyan Singh and another Vs. Union of India and others^ wherein a minor brother of the deceased was held to be a dependant. The relevant observation of the High Court at para 12 of the cited decision is as follows:

¶97

“12. The matter can be examined from another angle^aswell. Section 123(b) of the Railways Act define "dependent" to include minor brother if dependent partly or wholly^on the deceased passenger. The word dependency is not restricted to economic dependence but dependence of love, affection, care and protection of the deceased passenger as well.^The word "dependent" in Clause (ii) or Section 123(b) of the Railways Act is not to be given restrictive meaning but contextual meaning keeping in view the objective of the statute so as to compensate unfortunate death of a passenger in railway accident. Such provision cannot be interpreted so as to benefit the (sic) which in the present case would be the Railways. Sub-section (ii) of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act deals with dependency wholly or in part, therefore,^the dependence of care and protection, love and affection by the deceased on their minor brother would be dependence^within the meaning of the Act. It may be noticed that the parental grand parents can be said to be dependents only if they are wholly dependent on the deceased passenger. Such dependency is in contravention to even par dependency^ofa

¶98

^2008 see online P&H 1307

¶99

8

¶100

BSBJ C.M.A.No.604 of 2016

¶101

r

¶102

minor brother under Clause (ii) of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act.”

¶103

On the other hand, the contention of the respondent^isthatthe Tribunal rightly appreciated the decision and excluded^theclaimants and the order impugned does not require interference.

¶104

Section 123(b) of the Railways Act reads as follows: In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-

¶105

(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in section 124;

¶106

(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^apre deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the^deceased passenger;

¶107

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the decision in^Dhyan Singh and another (1 supra), dealt with a case of the^minorbrother who is mentioned in section 123(b)(ii) as a dependant,^{whereas,inthe} present case, the claimants are in-laws who are not^{coveredbyanyof} the clauses under section 123(b). ‘The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the above decision, it^{wasobservedthat}

¶108

9

¶109

BSB,J C.M.A.No.604 of 2016

¶110

the word dependency is not restricted to economic dependence, but dependence of love, affection, care and protection of the deceased passenger. This interpretation is to be understood to consider whether the referred category of relatives stated in the definition are wholly or partly dependant on the deceased, but not to identify persons who are dependants on the deceased. Therefore, the same analogy cannot be adopted. Even by liberal interpretation of social welfare legislation, a Court cannot introduce what is not expressly or by necessary implication stated in the statute, when it is not the intention of the legislature or the object of the legislation. As such, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶111