T.M. Vijaya Alias T.Vijaya Vs Union of India

T.M. VIJAYA ALIAS T.VIJAYA, W/O LATE T.L. MADAN MOHAN ALIAS T.MADAN MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, D.NO.18-736-A, NEERUGANTI VEEDHI, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DIST.,

¶10

T.M. YASHAWINI, D/O LATE T.L. MADAN MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, D.NO.18-736-A, NEERUGANTI VEEDHI, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DIST.,

¶11

T.M. BHAVITHA, D/O LATE T.L. MADAN MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, D.NO.18-736-A, NEERUGANTI VEEDHI, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DIST., 2 AND 3 MINORS REP. BY NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN APPLICANT NO.1

¶12

...APPELLANT(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

UNION OF INDIA, Rep.by its The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶17

1.GEETHA MADHURI N S

¶18

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶20

1.M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

2

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 231/2019

¶24

J U D G M E N T:

¶25

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short CMA) has been preferred by the Appellants/Applicants aggrieved by the Judgment in Case No.OA/II(U) No.10 of 2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench, Guntur, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the Applicants.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellants as Applicants and Respondent as Respondent

¶27

2. Applicants being wife and minor children of the deceased T.L.Madan Mohan @ T.Madan Mohan, aged 37 years, (hereinafter called as the deceased), have filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the Respondent – Railway Administration, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of T.L.Madan Mohan @ T.Madan Mohan, as a result of untoward incident that occurred on 18.11.2011.

¶28

3. The facts of the claim application of the applicants before the Tribunal are that - in the morning hours of 18.11.2021, the deceased, with a view to go to Visakhapatnam to the house of his relatives, reached railway station Rajahmundry accompanied by his friend, T.Adinarayana. After purchasing second class journey ticket from Rajahmundry to Visakhapatnam, he boarded second class compartment of train No.15929 Chennai Egmore-Dibrugarh Town Express in the presence of his friend. After departure of the said train, his friend returned from the railway station. Due to great rush of passengers, the deceased

¶29

3

¶30

slipped and accidentally fell down from the moving train at Samalkot railway station while the said train was leaving the platform after its scheduled halt. He sustained severe and multiple injuries and died on the same day.

¶31

4. The respondent filed written statement denying the averments of the applicants as made in the claim application being wrong, and contended that the applicants have no cause of action as their claim does not fall under Section 123(c)or Section 124-A of the Railways Act that as per the statement of K.C.S.Reddy, SIPF/SLO, on his enquiry from the passengers available on the platform, the deceased had tried to get down from the running train at SLO railway station where there was no scheduled halt of the said train and he died on the spot due to his own negligence. It is further stated that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger as he was not having any journey ticket, except Season Ticket from Rajahmundry to COA, which was not valid to travel by the superfast train. The applicants are not entitled to any claim, hence, prayed to dismiss the application, with costs.

¶32

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial/enquiry:-

¶33

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

¶34

1. Whether the deceased was a bona-fide passenger of the train in question?

¶35

1. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident?

¶36

4

¶37

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application?

¶38

1. To what relief?

¶39

6. To prove the case of claimants, the first applicant examined as AW-1 and one T.Adinarayana examined as AW-2. A.W.1 got marked Ex.A.1- attested copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.78 of 2011 issued by G.R.P Samalkot along with message;

¶40

Ex.A.2 – attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of Postmortem examination report of deceased, Ex.A.4 – copy of death certificate of deceased; Ex.A.5 – family members certificate, Ex.A.6 – identity card of the deceased.

¶41

On behalf of respondent-railway, DRM's inquiry report has been placed on record.

¶42

7. Upon hearing both sides, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal on issues No.2 and 3 held that the deceased was neither a bona-fide passenger of the train nor he suffered in an untoward incident, hence on issues No.1, 4 and 5 no written finding was given and dismissed the claim application of the claimants.

¶43

8. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the applicants have preferred the present appeal on the grounds that – the Tribunal erroneously appreciated the applicability of provisions of Section 124-A of the Railway Act, to the present case and erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger as he did not possess any Ticket at the time of his accident, death of

¶44

5

¶45

the deceased does not fall under the definition of “Untoward Incident”, erred in appreciating the evidence on record and discarded the prima-facie documents filed by the applicants. Hence, prayed to set aside the order dated 26.03.2019 in O.A II(U) No.10 of 2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi bench and to allow the appeal by granting compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶46

9. Heard the learned Counsel for claimants/petitioners and

¶47

Respondent.

¶48

10. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the journey ticket of the deceased was lost in the incident and due to non-recovery of the ticket the tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimants, but, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record proves that the deceased died in an untoward incident.

¶49

In support of contention of claimants, the counsel for claimants relied on a judgment in Suman Sharma Vs. Union of India [2018 ACJ 2849] – wherein at Para 9 of the judgment it was held that –

¶50

(i) Merely because there has been no recovery of any ticket from the body of the deceased would not be a ground to deny the benefit of the no fault liability, which is to be paid on account of the untoward incident under Section 124.

¶51

(ii) The onus would fall to this extent upon the Railways that he was not a traveler on the train and had fallen down and thus, was a victim of untoward incident.

¶52

6

¶53

(iii) The onus should be shifted upon the Railways to prove that he was a trespasser and was travelling without a ticket and not a bonafide passenger.

¶54

This court perused the judgment passed by the tribunal and material available on

¶55

record. A.W.2 on oath by filing an affidavit has stated that he had accompanied the deceased to railway station, Rajahmundry and the deceased had purchased the ticket in his presence. Hence, the applicants by filing an affidavit on oath proved that the deceased has purchased the valid journey ticket. Now the burden shifts on to the respondent to prove by adducing cogent evidence that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, but the respondent failed to rebut the same.

¶56

11. The claimants by examining A.W.2 and by producing Ex.A.1 – certified copy of F.I.R and Ex.A.2 - attested copy of inquest report, in which at column No.XV it was mentioned that “as seen from the contents of F.I.R, observation of place of offence, statements given by the blood relations and eyewitness – Tayi Adinarayana (A.W.2), it appears that the deceased belongs to Ananthapur, he completed 24 years service in Army and recently, from 01.10.2011 he is working at Reliance Gas near Gadimogga at Kakinada. With a view to go to his relatives house at Visakhapatnam on his work, he purchased a train journey Ticket from Rajahmundry railway station to Visakhapatnam and he boarded in train No.15929 (CEN-DBRT) which was arrived at Rajahmundry at about 9.30 Hours, and while travelling, on the way, when the said train going

¶57

7

¶58

from Samalkot Railway Station, accidentally, he slipped and fell down between platform No.1 and down main line track due to jerks of the train and due to rush of passengers, sustained severe injuries as mentioned in Col.No.7 and he died on the spot between K.M.No.628/204 Electrical posts”. In D.R.M report also in conclusion paragraph it was concluded that the deceased tried to get down from the running train at Samalkot and fell down from the train in between the train and the platform and died on the spot. So the claimants clearly proved that the deceased fell down from the train and sustained injuries and died on the spot in an untoward incident. Hence, the appeal is to be allowed.

¶59

12. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment dated 26.03.2019 in OA II (U).10 of 2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench at Guntur is hereby set-aside and the appeal stands allowed by ay allowing the claim of compensation. The appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization, in equal shares. The amount thus computed is directed to be paid by the respondent Railways within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the applicants are permitted to withdraw the same [In case the claimant is a minor, his/her share shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till he/she attains majority).

¶60

8

¶61

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶62

closed.

¶63

_______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶64

KS Dated 12.02.2026.

¶65

9