Dismissed

The Union of India v. v.Srinivas Reddy

Telangana HC22 Mar 2011CMA/794/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by the Railways against an order upholding a death compensation claim. The court rejected the challenge based on the lack of ticket production, upholding an adverse inference drawn from the son-in-law's unrefuted testimony regarding ticket purchase and boarding, thereby finding the deceased a bona fide passenger.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed; the original order awarding compensation to the applicants stands upheld.

The Union of India Vs v.Srinivas Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATE. 22-03-2011.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.794 of 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway NIlayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant

¶8

V.Srinivas Reddy and three others

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶11

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.794 of 2008

¶12

JUDGMENT:

¶13

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) is directed against order passed in O.A.A.No.33 of 2002 dated 10-1-2008 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, application filed under Section 16 of the Act read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on death of one Velamajala Ramadevi, was allowed.

¶14

2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in O.A.A. No.33 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal.

¶15

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

¶16

The applicants happened to the husband, son and daughters of he deceased V.Rama Devi. On 31-08-2001 the deceased with a view to go to Mancherial boarded train No.323 Singareni passenger from Kazipet holding a valid ticket purchased by her son in law and during the travel she fell down from the train which was in motion at K.M.365/39 and then she was dragged by the train as a consequence of which she sustained severe multiple injuries all over her body and died on the spot and she was a bona fide passenger of the train and hence the application was filed.

¶17

4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the pleas of the applicants on the ground that one female dead body aged about 30 years was found lying near washing area at K.M.365/39 and the

¶18

deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the dead body was not noticed by any fellow passengers or anybody and no report was given about the death to any railway officials which would disprove the claim of the applicants and prayed to dismiss the application.

¶19

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

¶20

1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased V.Rama Devi?

¶21

2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.323 Singareni passenger travelling from Kazipet to Mancherial on 31-08-2001?

¶22

3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train near washing side of Kazipet Rly.Station yard?

¶23

4) To what relief?

¶24

6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got himself examined as A.W.1. and another witness examined as A..W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.R.1.

¶25

7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants and awarded the compensation claimed directing the respondent to deposit the amount before the Tribunal together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.

¶26

8. There is no dispute from the respondent about the findings given under the first issue whereas there is dispute from the respondent about the findings given under the remaining issues.

¶27

9. It is to be mainly examined as to whether the deceased happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train and sufficient

¶28

evidence was placed in that context and whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether its order is tenable or not.

¶29

10. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the corresponding ticket was not produced before the Tribunal and the record of the railways clearly proves that the dead body was found at some washing area nearby the railway track which prove that the death did not occur as claimed by the applicants and the deceased never traveled by the train or she was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions.

¶30

11. No dispute is raised with regard to the other observations made by the Tribunal.

¶31

12. It is deposed by A.W.2, son in law of the deceased, that he purchased a train ticket for his mother-in-law for her journey from Kazipet to Manchiryal and he also purchased platform ticket for himself and later train No.323 Bhadrachalam road – Sirpur Kagaznagar Singareni passenger arrived on the platform and then his mother in law aboarded general compartment of the train and in his presence the train left the place which evidence was not rebutted by the respondent for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against the respondent. Therefore, the evidence of A.W.2 is to be upheld which therefore proves that A.W.2 purchased the train ticket for his mother-in-law and consequently his mother-in-law traveled by the train. Therefore, it is to be held that she happened to a bona fide passenger of the train.

¶32

13. The Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there are no reasons to interfere with the same.

¶33

14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There

¶34

shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 22-03-2011. VJL

The Union of India v. v.Srinivas Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. v.Srinivas Reddy

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

Union of India Vs Chilukuri Padmaja

The Union of India Vs C. Bujjaiah

K. Sulochana Vs Mr. Bhagavandas

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada Vs Namburu Durga Rao

Rohini Chit Funds, Vijayawada Vs Namburupeda Narasimha Rao

Union of India Vs Garnepudi Sunitha