A civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the Railway Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 4 lakhs compensation for a train accident-related death.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, confirming the Railway Claims Tribunal's order dated 05.01.2001.
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. 1261 of 2001
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2001 in O.A.A. No.132 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondents.
2. The appellant herein is the respondent, and the respondents herein are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The applicants filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs stating that on 02.05.1999, one P.Niranjan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) accompanied by his friends went to Araku, stayed there for the night and on the next day morning, he went to Borra caves for site seeing and in the evening boarded Train No.2VK Kirandal-Visakhapatnam passenger in general compartment; that, on the way, while the train was reaching Simhachalam Railway Station, the deceased had accidentally fell down due to jerks of the train, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries when he was being taken to hospital.
4. The respondent filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and no
untoward incident took place resulting in the death of the son of the applicants, and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues.
1) It is proved by the petitioners that on 2.5.99 the deceased was travelling as a passenger in train No.2VK Kirardal Exp. From Borraguhalu to Visakhapatnam ?
3) Is it proved that the deceased was a passenger in that train ?
6. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants. Challenging the same, the present C.M.A. is filed by the respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the applicants had not produced any ticket to show that the deceased is passenger and the evidence of A.W.2 cannot be accepted because Jagadish, who purchased the tickets for other friends along with the deceased, is not examined. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the one Jagadish purchased ticket and therefore the deceased is a bona fide passenger.
9. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. With regard to the aspect whether the deceased is a bona fide
passenger or not, the evidence of A.W.2 is relevant. He categorically stated that the said Jagadish collected Rs.100/- each from all the persons and he purchased tickets to travel in the train and all the tickets were kept in the bag; that, after the incident, the bag was lost and therefore the tickets could not be purchased. If the evidence of a solitary eye-witness is found to be true and trustworthy, there is no difficulty in accepting his evidence. Though A.W.2 is friend of the deceased, at the same time, he is found to be a person who was going along with the deceased. That cannot be disputed because he set the criminal law into motion by lodging First Information Report with police. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that A.W.2 was travelling along with the deceased. He categorically stated that when the deceased had fallen from the train as there was a jolt, he tried to pull chain, but, the train did not stop; that he got down when the train was going slowly and he along with his friends took the deceased to hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. In such a situation, there was possibility of loosing the bag when they were trying to save the life of the deceased. When there is evidence on record to show that one Jagadish purchased the tickets and kept the same in the bag, examination of the said Jagadish may not be necessary because A.W.2 categorically stated that the said Jagadish purchased tickets for the deceased and others. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of A.W.2. That is the reason why the trial court placed reliance on the evidence of A.W.2 and held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
10. Another strong circumstance is that the
deceased along with 30 other persons went to Araku valley and while they were returning from Visakhapatnam, the untoward incident took place. Had the group of persons numbering 30, were travelling in the train without ticket, they would have been noticed by the Travelling Ticket Examiner. In these circumstances, the evidence of A.W.2 can be accepted that one Jagadish purchased tickets for all. The Tribunal, after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record in right perspective, rightly awarded the compensation, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the order dated 05.01.2001 in O.A.A. No.132 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad.
--------------07.04.2010
DRK
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1261 of 2001
Date: 07.04.2010
Between:
Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta
…appellant
And
Palla Sombabu & another
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1261 of 2001
07.04.2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether compensation awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal to deceased passengers in a train accident is sustainable.
Whether the evidence alone is sufficient to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger without individual tickets.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta
Palla Sombabu
another
K.C. Bhanu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
