This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed the railway accident claim where the Court held that the appellants failed to prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger on a running train.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed with 'No costs' to the respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1051 of 2003
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2002 in O.A.A. No.204 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. The appellants herein are the applicants, and the respondent herein is the respondent, before the Tribunal. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The applicants filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation stating that Kasani Surya Prakasa Rao, who is husband of first applicant and father of applicants 2 to 4, died in an untoward incident occurred in the early hours of 3.6.1999 at Dwarapudi railway station, while he was travelling in II Class general compartment in train no.2703 Howrah-Secunderabad Falaknuma express, due to speed and jerks of the train.
4. The respondent filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1987 and he did not sustain the injuries in the untoward incident while travelling in the train and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim application.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues.
1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Kasani
Surya Prakasa Rao ?
2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train
no.2703 Howrah-Secunderabad express travelling from
Visakhapatnam to Rajahmundry on 2/3.6.99 ?
3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Dwarapudi railway station ?
4) to what relief ?
6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, came to conclusion that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he died in an untoward incident while travelling in the train, and accordingly dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the applicants.
7. Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct and proper ?
8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that he saw the deceased purchasing ticket and boarding Falaknuma express train at Visakhapatnam so as to get down at Rajahmundry; that, while the deceased was travelling as bona fide passenger, he fell down at Dwarapudi railway station in an untoward incident and died; that, even
though there are no eye-witnesses to the incident, the Latin maxim Res ipsa loquitur would come into play; that, the inquest report shows that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him when he fell from the train, and hence, she prays to award compensation to appellants, who are the dependents of the deceased.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that there are no circumstances to indicate that the deceased was travelling in Falaknuma express; that, considering the material on record, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prays to dismiss the C.M.A.
10. Under Section 124A of the Railways Act, when a person dies or sustains injuries, travelling as a passenger in a train, Railways are liable to compensate him. The word ‘passenger’ defined under the said provision reads that a person travelling in the train with a valid ticket. For the purpose of invoking the Section 124A of the Act, the burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he died in an untoward incident while travelling in a train.
11. According to the applicants, the incident is alleged to have taken place at about 2.30 AM on the fateful day. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. When there are no eye-witnesses to the
incident, the incident can be established by the principle o f Res ipsa loquitur which means the things speak for itself. For invoking the said maxim, there must be other circumstances which would go to show that the deceased was travelling in the train and he purchased ticket at Visakhapatnam and that while he was travelling in the train, and his dead body was near the railway track. Except the oral and interested testimony of A.W.2 that he dropped the deceased at Visakhapatnam railway station, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the deceased boarded the Falaknuma express after purchasing the ticket. Unless the deceased purchased the ticket, his legal heirs are not entitled to claim compensation. But, such evidence is lacking. If really the deceased was travelling in the train after purchasing ticket, the ticket would have been found in his shirt or pant pocket when he fell down from the running train.
12. Similarly, none of the officials of the respondent noticed the dead body by the side of the railway track. The incident is alleged to have taken place at 2.30 AM, whereas the dead body was noticed by a rickshaw puller, who informed A.W.2, and A.W.2 and the rickshaw puller took the deceased, in the first instance to Anaparthy and thereafter to Rajahmundry. But, the said rickshaw puller is not examined to show that the dead body of the deceased was found lying near the railway track. A.W.2 did not report about the incident to anybody. Upon receipt of death intimation from hospital authorities, police registered
the case and investigated into.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the recitals in column no.15 of Ex.A2-inquest report. The recitals in column no.15 of inquest report are based upon the information given by some other witnesses. Therefore, column no.15 of inquest report cannot be used as evidence as it is hit by the ‘rule of hearsay evidence’. Further more, the purpose of holding inquest is to ascertain the apparent cause of death of the deceased. A document like inquest report, consists of two parts -one is based upon the information given by the witnesses and the other is based upon the objective findings of the investigating officer. The objective findings are only admissible under law and the information received by the investigating officer through somebody are inadmissible under law. Therefore, the contention that the recitals in column no.15 of the inquest report can be used as evidence, cannot be accepted and that is the reason the recitals in Ex.A2 were rejected by the Tribunal. Barring the evidence of A.W.2, there is no evidence to show that the deceased died in untoward incident while travelling as bona fide passenger in Falaknuma express from Visakhapatnam to Rajahmundry, and considering these aspects, the claims tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition. The findings are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, and none of the findings of the claims tribunal is shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record.
14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
21.04.2010
DRK
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 879 of 2003
Date: 21.04.2010
Between:
Kasani Dhanalaxmi & others
…appellants
And
Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, Sough Central Railway, Rail Nilayam Secunderabad
…Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1051 of 2003
21.04.2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants are entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1987 as the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
Whether the principles of Res ipsa loquitur are applicable to establish the deceased's travel on the train in the absence of direct evidence?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kasani Dhanalaxmi & others
Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway
K.C. Bannerjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
