S. Krishna Vs Union of India

Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short „the learned Tribunal‟) in O.A II (U) No.44 of 2012, T.A.No.288 of 2018, dated 22.03.2019 the Applicants have preferred the present Appeal.

¶26

The brief facts of the claim application of the applicants before the Tribunal are that with a view to go to Vijayawada and from there to go to Palakollu to the house of his paternal uncle, the victim, S. Giribabu @ Giri (hereinafter referred to as „the deceased‟) accompanied by his friend one Mr. Ch. Seshu went to Tenali Railway Station in the morning hours of 03.06.2011, purchased a passenger train journey ticket from Tenali to Vijayawada and boarded the Train No.57241, Bitragunta Vijayawada Passenger in a general compartment and left in presence of his friend. While travelling, as there was heavy rush of passengers in the compartment, suddenly, the deceased, S.Giribabu @ Giri slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train at K.M.No.407/12-14 in a yard of Duggirala Railway Station due to speed and sudden jerk of the said running train and in the result the victim sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot in the same day morning hours of 03.06.2011. Police case was registered under F.I.R.No.58 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011, postmortem examination as conducted over the dead body of the

¶27

3

¶28

victim at District Hospital, Tenali, Guntur District. Hence, the Claimants filed the claim petition.

¶29

The Respondent/Railways filed Written Reply, contended that there is no cause of action for the applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989. It is contended that as per statement of Mr. Chintam Sriramaiah, Passenger Guard, there was no jerk and jolt and he did not notice any ACO or untoward incident. It is contended that there is no evidence that the deceased travelled in Train No.57241 as Passenger on the said date and fell down from the running train and there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident. It is also contended that the ticket is alleged to be lost in the accident which is a false statement by the applicants. It is further contended that the victim was not a bonafide passenger and no ticket was seized from the possession of the deceased. The Respondent Railway has prayed for dismissal of the Claim Application.

¶30

Basing on the above pleadings of both sides, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for enquiry/trial -

¶31

1) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train in question as alleged ?

¶32

2) Whether the incident on account of which the victim alleged to have died is covered as an untoward incident in terms of provision of Section 123(e) of the Railways Act, 1989?

¶33

3) Whether the applicants are the dependents of the victim within the meaning Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 are entitled to get compensation, as prayed for?

¶34

4) To what other relief, if any, the applicant and other dependants of the deceased are entitled ?

¶35

4

¶36

To prove the case, the Applicant No.1- S.Krishna has examined himself as A.W.1 and one Ch.Seshu, examined as A.W.2 who is alleged to be witnessed the purchase ticket and got marked Ex.A.1- FIR, Ex.A.2 - Inquest Report, Ex.A.3 - P.M. Report; Ex.A.4 - Death Certificate; Ex.A.5 - Aadhar Card of Simhadri Giribabu, Ex.A.6 - Aadhar Card of Simhadri Krishna, Ex.A.7 - Household Card, Ex.A.8 - Memo filed by the Applicant No.1 - S. Krishna along with Family Member Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Tenali. The Respondent/ Railway has examined one Mr. Shaik Anwar Basha as R.W.1 and the DRM's report in this case which is marked as Ex.R.1, copy of I.D Card of R.W.1 marked as Ex.R.2.

¶37

Learned Tribunal after hearing both Counsel and upon perusing the material in record, dismissed the claim of the Applicants by holding on issue No.1 that as no journey ticket was recovered from the possession of deceased and that he is not a bonafide passenger and on issue No.2 as there is no proof filed by the Applicants that the deceased died in an untoward incident. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent.

¶39

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

¶40

5

¶41

provisions of the Railway Act, simply dismissed the claim of the Appellants. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.

¶42

Learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent would contend that the deceased was not possessing valid railway journey ticket at the time of untoward incident. Therefore he cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. The claim is 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 Appellant herein. The learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim made by the Appellant after considering the submissions of Respondent. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Perused the record.

¶44

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

¶45

“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

¶46

1 Civil A ppeal No.3799 of 2023

¶47

6

¶48

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-

¶49

“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 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.”

¶50

In Rina Devi’s case cited supra, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that, on the burden of proof, which emphasized 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.

¶51

In the instant case, the burden of proof shifts on the Respondent/ Railways, as the Appellant proved that he sustained injuries and died on the spot in the untoward incident by placing relevant documents cited supra, which shows that the deceased died in the untoward incident while travelling in the train. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the deceased died in the untoward incident while travelling in a train.

¶52

7

¶53

14. In the light of judgment of “ Union of India v. Radha Yadav² ” , wherein

¶54

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that

¶55

“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.”

¶56

During hearing, learned counsel for the Appellants drawn the attention

¶57

of this Court with regard to Section 123 and also 25 (c) of the Railway Act, 1989, which deals “untoward incident”, which reproduced hereunder:

¶58

Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

(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;

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

25 [(c) “untoward incident” means—

¶67

2 (2019) 3 SCC 410

¶68

8

¶69

(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

¶70

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

¶71

(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

¶72

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

¶73

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 is failed to establish as to whether the injured/ deceased is not a bona fide passenger. Claimant 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.

¶74

Coming to 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 was held as follows:

¶75

9

¶76

“ 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:

¶77

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”.

¶78

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.

¶79

Following the decisions cited supra, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The impugned judgment dated 22.03.2019 passed in OA/II/U/No.44 of 2012 (T.A.No.288 of 2018) by the learned Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/(Rupees Four Lakhs only) from the Respondent. The Applicants are entitled to claim compensation in equal shares.

¶80