Remanded

Union of India v. Trilokinath Pandey

Telangana HC3 Mar 2011CMA/471/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by Railways challenging the Railway Claims Tribunal's award of compensation. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order, finding defective proof of travel and cause of death lacking medical expertise, and remanded the case.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.

Union of India Vs Trilokinath Pandey — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

+CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.471 OF 2006

¶3

%Dated 03-03-2011

¶4

C.M.A. No.471 OF 2006 B e t w e e n:

¶5

#The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND $Trilokinadh Pandey and another. --- Respondents/ Applicants.

¶6

! Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. B.H.R. Chowdary. ^ Counsel for Respondents. : Mr. Harish Kumar. < GIST : > HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred : ---

¶7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶8

DATE.03-03-2011.

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶11

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.471 OF 2006

¶12

Between:

¶13

The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent.

¶14

Trilokinadh Pandey and another. --- Respondents/ Applicants.

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶17

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.471 OF 2006

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Tribunal Act”) by the Railways against order, dated 0603-2006, passed in O.A.A. No.226 of 2002 filed under Section 16 of the Tribunal Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one Sanjay Kumar Pandey (Hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) allowing the claim.

¶20

2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.226 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal.

¶21

3. The facts of the case as set out by the applicants are as follows :

¶22

The deceased while travelling by Train No.2626 DN Kerala Express from Pokharvan to Secunderabad via Nagpur Junction to attend written examination of RRB/Secunderabad on 19-08-2001, fell down at the second platform of Ramagundam Railway station due to sudden jerks of the train and heavy rush in the train and received

¶23

head injuries and while taking treatment, succumbed to the injuries in the Government Civil Hospital, Ramagundam, and he was a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants who happened to be his parents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

¶24

4. The respondent filed his written statement claiming that as per the enquiries with the Guard of the train, no untoward incident was reported and therefore if there was a fall, it must have been due to the negligent and Criminal acts of the deceased as he slipped and fell down from the running train by reason of which he received injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the Government Civil Hospital, Ramagundam. It is also claimed that though the passenger was holding Ticket No.02298 from Pokharvan to Nagpur and also an extended paper ticket No.D 103428, dated 17-08-2001 from Nagpur to Secunderabad as there was negligence on his part it would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries and as such he was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the applicants are not entitled to the compensation.

¶25

5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal :

¶26

1) Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased?

¶27

2) Whether on 17-08-2001 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question?

¶28

3) Whether the death was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act?

¶29

4) Relief and costs?

¶30

6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got himself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R., Inquest Report, Post-mortem Report, Final Report, Call letter issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Secunderabad, and Ration Card. On behalf of the respondent, the Guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and got marked Railway time table as Ex.R-1.

¶31

7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal allowed the application and granted the relief directing the respondent to immediately pay Rs.50,000/- cash and deposit the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- in Postal Deposit Scheme or Fixed Deposit scheme in a Nationalised Bank of their choice nearer to their residence for a period of 3 years and further directed the respondent to pay the compensation amount to the applicants within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which to carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization of the amount. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred.

¶32

8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that one unknown dead body was found at the second platform of Ramagundam railway station before 11-10 hours on 18-08-2001 whereas the corresponding F.I.R. was registered at Bellampally railway station under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on the basis of information given by the Deputy

¶33

station Superintendent of Bellampally railway station and the applicants failed to produce the corresponding tickets to prove the genuineness of the travel and further as per the evidence of RW.1, Guard of the train coupled with Ex.R-1 no such untoward incident took place and according to the pleadings in the application the deceased aboarded the train at Pokharvan and traveled up to Nagpur but in fact there was no such railway station as Pokharvan railway station and further the identity of the deceased with reference to the age given is not established by the applicants and further as per the corresponding postmortem report the death would have taken place 6 hours prior to the post mortem examination which is meant that it would have occurred at 12-00 noon on 18-08-2001 which is further meant that it might have taken place after the train left the railways station and ultimately the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

9. Therefore, there is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1 to the effect that the applicants happened to be the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased.

¶35

10. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to :

¶36

1) Whether sufficient evidence was placed to the effect that the deceased traveled by the train and he was a bona fide passenger/not a bona fide passenger of the train?

¶37

2) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and its order is sustainable or not?

¶38

11. Point No.1: Evidence was adduced in respect of the respective claims. Significantly in the application, it is pleaded that the deceased while traveling from Pokharvan to Secunderabad via Nagpur junction to attend the written examination of RRB Secunderabad by train No.2626 DN Kerala Express fell down on the second platform of Ramagundam railway station due to sudden jerks of the train and also due to heavy rush in the train and received head injuries and later succumbed to injuries, but as per the inquest report Ex.A-2 and also the final report Ex.A-4 two tickets were collected from the dead body of the deceased during the inquest without mentioning as to when they were purchased and to cover what stations they were purchased and on the other hand, they were not produced before the Tribunal. Further according to AW.1 in her cross-examination the tickets recovered from the body of the deceased were kept by the police with themselves, much emphasis is to be given to the claim of the respondents counsel that there was no such railway station as Pokharvan which if true clearly disproves the claim of the applicants and further as per the post mortem report the death would have occurred 6 hours prior to the post mortem examination which is meant that it would have taken place at 12 noon on 18-08-2001 which is further meant that it might have taken place after the train left Ramagundam railway station and it is also contended that the identity of the deceased is not established with reference to his age. Under these

¶39

circumstances, the production of the railway tickets is very important to establish the actual travel of the deceased.

¶40

12. In the inquest report, it is observed that the deceased while traveling by train No.2626 DN Kerala Express fell down accidentally at the plat form No.2 of the Ramagundam railway station and received grievous injuries and died. The inquest report is relevant to bring to light the nature of the injuries received and cause of death, it does not provide that any eye witness was examined at the time of conducting the inquest. Therefore it is quite surprising as to how it was opined by concerned mediators that the deceased while traveling by train No.2626 fell down accidentally at the second platform of Ramagundam railway station whereas, it may be correct to say that he fell down from a train basing upon the injuries received by him and other circumstantial evidence. Further, Ex.A-7 final report provides that there was no foul play suspected in the case which can not also be sufficient to uphold the claim.

¶41

13. Pertinently according to RW.1 no untoward incident took place on that day and no information was given to the Railway Authorities immediately after the accident, there may not be any need for him to give false evidence. Further his veracity is subject to the other findings of the case.

¶42

14. Whether the deceased died of accidental fall or not can be best explained by a medical officer who would have necessary technical know how and it can not be decided basing upon the said observations made in the inquest report which was given by non technical persons just basing on what injuries they found on the dead body, whereas in fact the opinion given by them provide that they did so having got some interest to help the kith and kin of the deceased person. If a postmortem report is marked with the consent of both sides and it contains a definite finding as to whether relevant injuries would have been caused by a fall from a train, there may not be any need to examine the concerned doctor to establish that factor. In all other cases of this nature concerned doctor should be examined to ascertain the actual nature of injuries received and actual cause of death otherwise, actual cause of death can not be ascertained.

¶43

15. Hence, for the foregoing reasons the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the matter in the light of the observations made above.

¶44

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶46

Date. 03-03-2011. Note: Mark L.R. Copy. B/o. Dsh.

Union of India v. Trilokinath Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Trilokinath Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India Vs Manthena Yadagiri

The Union of India Vs Patan Asadulla Khan

The Union of India Vs Mohd. Khaleel

The Property Association of Baptist Churches [P] Ltd., Vs T.S. Yesuraju

Sunka Rajamma Vs Union of India

N. Nagamani Vs The Union of India