B Nagendra Vs union of india

Appeal Under Section_____against ordersto set-aside the order dated 03-04-2020 in O.A II (U) No. 215 of 2013 on the file of the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, and consequently allow the appeal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶19

1.GEETHA MADHURI N S

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶21

2

¶22

VS,J CMA_91 of 2021

¶23

1.J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶24

The Court made the following:

3

VS,J CMA_91 of 2021

JUDGMENT:-

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim application filed by the appellant/applicant in OA/II/u/215/2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench vide judgment dated 03.04.2020, this civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant.

¶29

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

¶30

It is the case of the applicant that on 25.12.2012, in the evening, he went to Hindupur railway station, purchased a second class train journey ticket to Anantapur and boarded train No.17604; enroute, when the applicant went near wash basin to wash his hands, he accidentally fell off the train due to sudden jerks and jolts as a result of which, both his legs were run over by the train. Immediately, the train stopped and the applicant was shifted to Puttaparti Super Specialty hospital and subsequently to Victoria hospital, Bangalore, where both his legs were amputated. Seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injury suffered by him due to the alleged untoward incident, the applicant filed an application before the Tribunal.

¶31

The respondent – South Central Railway contested the claim application by filing a written statement denying the averments of the applicants and stated that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident and that no train journey ticket was recovered from the applicant; that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

¶32

4

¶33

VS,J CMA_91 of 2021

¶34

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

¶35

1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident?

¶36

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the claim compensation as prayed for and to what relief?

¶37

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

¶38

The Tribunal, after going through the material available before it, came to a conclusion that the incident does not fall under the definition of „untoward incident‟ as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the applicant by way of the impugned judgment, challenging which, the present appeal is filed.

¶39

Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶40

During hearing learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the appellant 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 appellant. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.

¶41

Learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that the appellant was not possessing valid railway journey ticket at the time of accident. Therefore he cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. The

5

VS,J

CMA_91 of 2021

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 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.

¶46

Perused the record.

¶47

During hearing learned counsel for the Appellant 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:

¶48

“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-

¶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

¶50

1 Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023

¶51

6

¶52

VS,J CMA_91 of 2021

¶53

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.”

¶54

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.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

“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.”

¶58

During hearing, learned counsel for the appellant 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:

¶59

Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

124;

¶63

2 (2019) 3 SCC 410

¶64

7

¶65

VS,J CMA_91 of 2021

¶66

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

¶67

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

¶68

(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;

¶69

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

¶70

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

¶71

25 [(c) “untoward incident” means—

¶72

(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

¶73

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

¶74

(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

¶75

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

¶76

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 appellant is not a bonafide

8

VS,J

CMA_91 of 2021

passenger. The appellant has discharged his 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:

¶81

“ 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:

¶82

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”.

¶83

In view of the aforesaid order, the claim is restricted to Rs. 8,00,000/- only. The amount of compensation payable in respect of injuries sustained by the appellant is as per the schedule in Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016, part II (3) which deals with double amputation through leg or thigh or amputation through leg or thigh on one side and loss of other foot.

¶84

Following the decisions cited supra, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2020 passed in OA/II/u/215/2013 by the learned Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The

¶85

9

¶86

VS,J CMA_91 of 2021

¶87

respondent shall pay the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellant/applicant 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. Gss

B Nagendra v. union of india

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Nagendra v. 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

Gantasala Suguna Vs the Union of India

D. Srinivasa Rao@ Srinivas Vs Union of India

N. Jayaprakash Vs Union of India