Gantasala Suguna Vs the Union of India

GANTASALA ARUNA, D/O LATE NAGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL ARE R/O D.NO 19-1-64 CINEMA ROAD BANKPETA KAKINADA URBAN MANDAL AND TOWN EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶15

...APPELLANT(S)

¶16

AND

¶17

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY SECUNDERABAD

¶18

...RESPONDENT

¶19

Appeal Under Section_____against ordersBEG TO PRESENT THIS MEMORANDUM OF CIVIL MISC APPEAL HAVING BEEN AGGRIEVED BY THE JUDGEMENT DT. 5-1-2021 PASSED IN O.A.II(U) NO. 83 OF 2012 OF THE FILE OF TH RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AMARAVATI BENCH

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

2

VS,J CMA_121 of 2021

1.P L RAO

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶25

1.JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶26

The Court made the following:

3

VS,J CMA_121 of 2021

JUDGMENT:-

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim application filed by the appellants/applicants in OAII(U) No.83 of 2012 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench vide judgment dated 05.01.2021, this civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants.

¶31

For better appreciation of the case, the parties will be hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶32

The claimants are the wife and children of one Gantalsala Nageswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟). It is the case of the claimants that on 01.03.2010, the deceased along with one Parisina Srinivasa Rao went to Kakinada town railway station in order to go to Vijayawada and accordingly, he purchased a train journey ticket; while boarding train No.7206 (Kakinada – Manmad express), due to sudden jerks of the train, he accidentally fell down and was run over by the said train due to which, he died on the spot. Seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,00/- for the death of the deceased in the aforesaid alleged untoward incident, the claimants filed an application before the Tribunal.

¶33

The respondent – South Central Railway contested the claim application by filing a written statement denying the averments of the applicants and stated that the deceased was not found in possession of any travelling authority; that when the subject train started moving from the platform, the deceased, in an attempt to board the train from its off side, fell down and was run over by the train, which is a self inflicted injury, but not an untoward incident.

¶34

4

¶35

VS,J CMA_121 of 2021

¶36

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶37

1. Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased?

¶38

2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?

¶39

3. Whether Applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

¶40

During the course of trial, the 1^st applicant was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. One Sri Parisina Srinivasa Rao was examined as A.W.2. Except relying on Divisional Railway Manger‟s report, no witness was examined on behalf of the respondent.

¶41

The Tribunal, after going through the material available before it, came to a conclusion that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died due to an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act. Hence, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the claimants by way of the impugned judgment, challenging which, this appeal has been preferred.

¶42

Heard Sri. P.L. Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. K. Krishna Bushan Chowdary, learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶43

During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The learned tribunal without appreciating the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act, simply dismissed the claim of the appellants. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.

5

VS,J

CMA_121 of 2021

Learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that the deceased was not possessing valid railway journey ticket at the time of accident. Therefore he cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. The claim does not fall under Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Therefore there is no fault or lapse on the part of the railways in the alleged mishap; the Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants herein. The learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim made by the appellants after considering the submissions of respondent. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed.

¶48

11. Perused the record.

¶49

During hearing learned counsel for the Appellants would contend that this matter is squarely covered by an order of this Court in C.M.A.No.17 of 2020 dated 29.09.2023, wherein this court following the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “ Kamukayi & Ors. V. Union of India and Ors”¹ , held as follows:

¶50

“This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analyzing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India and the judgments of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India and also considered the judgment of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India6 and in para 29 concluded as thus-

¶51

“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

¶52

1 Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023

6

VS,J

CMA_121 of 2021

on the claimant which 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828 (2019) 12 SCC 391 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.”

¶57

In Rina Devi’s case cited supra, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that any person found dead or injured on railway premises is presumed to be a bona fide passenger unless the railway administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse.

¶58

In the instant case, the burden of proof shifts on the Respondent/ Railways, as the appellants proved that the deceased died due to an untoward incident occurred on the fateful day. None was examined on behalf of the respondents to rebut the evidence of the appellants. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the deceased died in the untoward incident while travelling in a train.

¶59

In “ Union of India v. Radha Yadav² ” , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that:

¶60

“because death is proved due to outcome of untoward incident of the deceased being a bona fide passenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded.”

¶61

During hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 123 and also 25 (c) of the Railway Act, 1989, which deals with “untoward incident”, and the same reads as under:

¶62

Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989

2 (2019) 3 SCC 410

7

VS,J CMA_121 of 2021

123. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,—

¶67

(a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in section

¶68

124;

¶69

(b) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:—

¶70

(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;

¶71

(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;

¶72

(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;

¶73

(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.

¶74

25 [(c) “untoward incident” means—

¶75

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

¶76

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

¶77

(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

¶78

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

¶79

8

¶80

VS,J CMA_121 of 2021

¶81

In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the material available on record and as per the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme court in Kamukayi‟s case (supra), it can be observed that the respondent failed to establish that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger. The applicants have discharged their burden by filing an affidavit with relevant facts, hence the burden shifts on the Railways. The amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries as per the schedules in Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016. So far as the interest part is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent relied on Common Order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.1074 of 2018, wherein this Court at Para 8 held as follows:

¶82

“ However, in a subsequent Judgment referred above, the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the payment of interest and payment of enhanced compensation, was pleased to observe that:

¶83

In case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs. 4,00,000/-. If after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs. 8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claim would be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/-. If however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-, the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment to the extent possible”.

¶84

In view of the aforesaid order, the claim is restricted to Rs. 8,00,000/- only. The amount of compensation payable in respect of death of the deceased to the applicants is as per the schedule in Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016.

¶85

9

¶86

VS,J CMA_121 of 2021

¶87

Following the decisions cited supra, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 05.01.2021 passed in OAII(U) No.83 of 2012 by the learned Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The respondent shall pay the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellants/applicants herein within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶88

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶89

___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶90

Date:15.04.2026.

¶91

Gss

Gantasala Suguna v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gantasala Suguna v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Liquidator Vs re

The Official Liquidator, Vs re

The Official Liquidator Vs re

B Nagendra Vs union of india

D. Srinivasa Rao@ Srinivas Vs Union of India

N. Jayaprakash Vs Union of India