Allowed

G.Rajya Lakshmi and 2 Others v. G.M. S.C.Railway and 2 Others

Telangana HC19 Mar 2010CMA/3166/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the dismissal of a railway accident compensation claim, the court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Despite the lack of a recovered ticket, the intent to travel established by witness testimony discharged the initial burden, leading to a directive for compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum directed to be paid to appellants.

G.Rajya Lakshmi and 2 Others Vs G.M. S.C.Railway and 2 Others — Telangana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3166 of 2001

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

1. This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2001 in O.A.A. No.297 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application of the appellants was dismissed.

¶4

2. The appellants herein filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs stating that on 14.8.1999, one G.Venugopal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) along with his relative Anusuri Musalaiah, went to Vijayawada from Kakinada to purchase sewing machine spare parts, and while returning in the night of 15.8.1999, both went to Vijayawada Railway Station, purchased a train journey ticket from Vijayawada to Samalkot for the deceased, who boarded the train no.471Vijayawada-Visakhapatnam passenger in general compartment, at about 21.00 hours; that, while travelling in the train, in the early hours of 16.8.1999, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train at KM 626/20-22 opposite to Electrical sub-station, Samalkot railway station, and was being dragged by the train to a distance and died on the spot due to severe multiple injuries.

¶5

3. The respondent filed counter denying the allegations in the petition and stating that Keyman Ch.Sailu noticed a male person lying dead at KM 626/22-

¶6

24 between Samalkot and Gudeparthi stations at about 12.00 hours on 16.8.1999 and that the train arrived Samalkot station at 3.02 hours and left at 3.10 hours, and according to the Guard of the train, no untoward incident took place; that, it is not a case of death on account of accidental fall from the train.

¶7

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues.

¶8

1) Whether the applicants are dependents of deceased Gubbala Venugopal ? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train

¶9

No.471 Vijayawada-Visakhapatnam passenger traveling from Vijayawada to Samalkot on 15.8.99 ? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward

¶10

incident of accidental fall from the train at Samalkot Railway Station ? 4) To what relief ?

¶11

5. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, held that the applicants have not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was a passenger traveling in the train with valid ticket, and accordingly dismissed the claim of the legal representatives of the deceased. Challenging the same, the present C.M.A. is filed by the applicants.

¶12

6. Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct and proper ?

¶13

7. Under Section 124A of the Railways Act, when a person dies or sustains injuries, traveling as a passenger

¶14

in a train, Railways are liable to compensate him. The word ‘passenger’ defined under the said provision reads that a person traveling in the train with a valid ticket. On the ground that the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was traveling as bona fide passenger, the claim of the applicants has been rejected by the Tribunal. There cannot be any dispute that initial burden is on the applicants to establish that the deceased was traveling in the train as a passenger with a valid ticket. A.W.2-A.Musalaiah categorically stated that he went to the Railway Station along with the deceased and that the deceased purchased ticket and boarded the train. Police have not seized any ticket from the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, prima facie, the evidence of A.W.2 would go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, who wanted to travel in the train.

¶15

8. Even assuming that the evidence of A.W.2 is not to be accepted, this Court in Parisa Anjali & others v. Union of India rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad^[1] held thus: (para 11)

¶16

“Even if there is any possibility for treating the ticket held by the deceased, as not valid one, he does not cease to be a passenger, in the context of the extension of benefits, under Sections 124 and 124-A of the Act. What becomes material, in this regard, is the intention of the person, who was traveling in the train. It is only when the person boards the train with a clear intention to travel in it, without purchasing a ticket, that he can be treated as not a passenger. Take for instance a situation, where a person finds that the train in which he has to travel, is about to start, by the time he reached the station, and he does not have the time to purchase the ticket. Though he

¶17

does not hold the ticket, he may still board the train with an intention to pay the fare to the TTE. Such a person can still be treated as bona fide passenger, both, when he boarded the train without ticket and after he pays the fare to the TTE.”

¶18

If the ratio laid down in the above decision is taken into consideration, if a bona fide traveller intended to board the train at the last minute, it may not be possible for him to purchase the ticket. But, his intention is to pay the fare to the TTE when he comes to the compartment.

¶19

9. In the case on hand, the deceased was a Tailor. He went to Vijayawada for purchasing spare parts of sewing machine. Therefore, without purchasing the ticket, he ought not have boarded the train along with spare parts. The evidence of A.W.1 would also go to show that her husband left house along with A.Musalaiah by EastCoast Express and she was informed about her husband’s death by one of the Constables. In these circumstances, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the vehicle. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the initial burden placed on the applicants has been discharged. The burden is on the respondent to disprove that fact. No other evidence has been let in on behalf of the respondent to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train. The investigating officer is examined as Court Witness. But, he is not an eye-witness to the incident. 10. At the time of conducting inquest, the mediators opined that it was a case of accidental fall or otherwise. No doubt, the purpose of holding inquest is to ascertain the apparent cause of death of the deceased. But, how

¶20

the deceased died and in what manner, are foreign to the ambit and scope of Section 174 Cr.P.C.

¶21

11. No doubt, in cross-examination, A.W.2 admitted that he did not see the deceased going to the booking office. Presence of A.W.2 has been specifically mentioned as the person accompanied the deceased to the Railway Station and thereafter boarding the train. Even assuming for a moment that the evidence of A.W.2 is to be rejected on the ground of inconsistency, still it cannot be said that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. Admittedly, the deceased, being a Tailor, was in the habit of going to Vijayawada for the purpose of purchasing spare parts of sewing machine and returning to the village. Therefore, in all probabilities, the deceased might have purchased the ticket for the purpose of travelling in the train along with his spare parts.

¶22

12. It is not the case of respondents that the deceased died otherwise than in the accident or untoward incident. Even it is not the case of the respondent that the deceased committed suicide for the reasons best known to him. If the theory of suicide is eliminated, then it can be presumed that it is a case of accidental fall from the train. For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation. As per the Schedule, the appellants/applicants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only).

¶23

13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, setting aside the order dated 14.09.2001 in O.A.A. No.297 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims

¶24

Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellants/applicants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realization. No costs.

¶25

19.3.2010

¶26

DRK

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3166 of 2001

¶28

Date: 19.3.2010

¶29

Between:

¶30

G.Rajya Lakshmi & others