Dismissed

G.M. S.C.Railways Union of India Sec/Nad v. a.Swaroopa Rani Shamshabad R.R.Dt

Telangana HC21 Aug 2014CMA/3860/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the Railway Claims Tribunal awarding compensation for a railway accident was challenged by the Railways. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's award, finding the claimant to be a bona fide passenger and the grant of statutory interest justified.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed without costs.

G.M. S.C.Railways Union of India Sec/Nad Vs a.Swaroopa… — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3860 of 2002

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

This appeal is preferred questioning the Award dated 27.09.2002 in OAA No.155 of 1998 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad.

¶4

2. Respondent herein submitted a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short “the lower tribunal”) claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground that she sustained injuries in the untoward incident on 15.02.1998. Respondent herein contended that on the fateful day i.e., on 15.02.1998, she purchased ticket bearing No.17790 from Malakpet to Umdanagar while her husband was having a season ticket and both of them while boarding local train SU-21, she slipped and fell down between the track and the plot form due to jerks and she sustained grievous injuries, and on the complaint given by her husband, Malakpet police referred her to Osmania General Hospital for treatment.

¶5

3. Appellant herein resisted the claim of the claimant/ respondent and contended that the injuries are self-inflicted injuries and that the claimant was not a bonafide passenger and not entitled for the compensation and on these contentions, the lower tribunal on a consideration of material on record, disbelieved the contention of railways, granted Rs.2,80,000/- as compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization. Challenging the said Award, Railways filed the present appeal.

¶6

4. Heard arguments.

¶7

5. Advocate for appellant submitted that the order of the tribunal is illegal and not sustainable under law as it failed to consider the objection of appellant and that claimant is not a bonafide passenger. She submitted that claimant has given contradicting versions with regard to holding of ticket. She submitted that at one stage the claimant contended that the ticket was lost and the other version of claimant is that ticket was misplaced, in spite of such contradicting versions, the lower tribunal without considering the plea of railways that claimant is not a bonafide passenger, accepted the version of claimant and ordered for compensation and that findings of the lower tribunal are illegal and lack of weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. She submitted that claimant has not claimed any interest in her claim application but the lower tribunal granted interest @ 6% p.a. and that is also illegal and for these reasons, Award dated 27.09.2002 is liable to be set aside. She further submitted that award of the lower tribunal is contrary to the pleadings in the claim application.

¶8

6. On the other hand, advocate for claimant submitted that when claimant has specifically pleaded and given a ticket number, no material is produced on behalf of railways to show that the ticket number pleaded by claimant is a fake one. He submitted that lower tribunal has drawn a legal presumption that every passenger has to board the train only with valid ticket as boarding train without ticket is an offence, therefore, when the accident and claimants presence is admitted, contention of appellant has no force. It is submitted that burden is on the railways to show that she is not a bonafide passenger. He submitted that the lower tribunal has rightly considered the material on record and that there are no grounds to interfere. He submitted that interest

¶9

granted is only at statutory rate and tribunal has not granted any interest contrary to the statutory rate, therefore the objection of appellant with regard to interest is not tenable.

¶10

7. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this appeal is :

¶11

1) Whether the Award dated 27.09.2002 is illegal, arbitrary and in accordance with law?

¶12

POINT :

¶13

8. As seen from the material, the applicant in her sworn statement deposed that she along with her husband came to Malakpet on 15.02.1998 to her parents house from Shamshabad and on the same day she along with her husband in their return journey went to Malakpet railway station at about 10.15 p.m. and that her husband purchased a ticket for her and that she kept the same with her husband and that her husband was having a season ticket. She also deposed that while she was boarding a local train SU-21, she slipped and fell down between the train and the plat form due to sudden jerk and that her right hand was severed due to that incident and that she was referred to Osmania General Hospital and there she had undergone treatment for 45 days. In the evidence, so also in the complaint, ticket number 17790 was given as the ticket that was purchased by claimant for the same local train SU-21. When such a specific plea is taken and the claimant stated on oath in her evidence and no evidence rebutting the same was adduced on behalf of railways.

¶14

9. As rightly pointed out by advocate for claimant, if really, the ticket pleaded by claimant was a bogus one, railways ought to have produced the records which would have clinched the issue

¶15

whether ticket bearing No.17790 was really issued from Malakpet railway station and whether the same is from Malakpet to Umdanagar for the journey on 15.02.1998. When the railways have not produced such available record, there is nothing wrong for the tribunal in drawing presumption in favour of claimant with regard to purchase of the ticket.

¶16

10. No doubt some contradicting versions were given by claimant with regard to ticket and the same were also recorded by the tribunal. But those versions do not go into the roots of in the case and for that reason tribunal has not given any importance above referred discrepancy. Lower tribunal has elaborately discussed the entire evidence on record and rightly accepted the claim of claimants and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the objection of appellant with regard bonafide passenger is not at all tenable and the lower tribunal has rightly discarded the said objection.

¶17

11. Now coming to the other contention according to appellant ordering payment of interest is unwarranted. As seen from the record, lower tribunal granted 6% p.a. as interest from the date of application till realization on the compensation amount of Rs.2,80,000/-. The contention of appellant is that there is no relief in the claim petition for payment of interest. As rightly pointed out by advocate for claimant, interest at 6% is a very reasonable rate recognized by statute and when the tribunal held that claimant is entitled for compensation, ordering payment of interest in my view is well justified and there is no illegality in granting such relief.

¶18

12. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the Award dated 27.09.2002 and that appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶19

13. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Appeal, shall stand closed.

¶20

__________________ S. RAVI KUMAR, J

¶21

Date: 08-02-2016. gvl

G.M. S.C.Railways Union of India Sec/Nad v. a.Swaroopa Rani Shamshabad R.R.Dt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.M. S.C.Railways Union of India Sec/Nad v. a.Swaroopa Rani Shamshabad R.R.Dt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramisetti Babitha Vs Smt. R.Kalpana

Peerlagudem Gopal, Vs The State of A.P.

Kola Seetha Ramaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Muddasani Karan, Vs The State of A.P.

Dulala Govindu , Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sabella Srinivasa Reddy , Babi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh