Allowed

Mula Prasuna v. The Union Of India

Telangana HC13 Sept 2022CMA/259/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation claim. The court held that a passenger who accidentally fell from a running train while attempting to verify the station constitutes a bona fide passenger suffering an untoward incident, entitling them to compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of accident.

Mula Prasuna Vs The Union Of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOUR,ABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 259 OF 2019

¶7

Appeal Under Section23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the order in O.A.(llU).No.172 ot 2015, dated 2210112019 on the file of the Railway Glaims Tribunal Bench at Secunderabad Between:

¶8

Mula Prasuna, Wo. Late Mula Dayakar Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ - Agriculture,

¶9

Mula Sai Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late Mula Dayakar Reddy, Aged about 22 yearc, Occ - Student,

¶10

Mula Sugunamma, Wo. Late M. Keshav Reddy, Aged about 80 years, Occ - House Hold. All are R/o. 2-86, Pagadapalle Village. Mandal Kalva Srirampur, District Karimnagar, Telangana State

¶11

...APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Union of lndia, rep by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam at Secunderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI S CHANDRASEKHAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B LAXMI PRASUNA

¶17

(sc FoR CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

¶20

.r(

¶21

HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶22

C.M.A.NO.259 of 2019

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

Being aggrieved by the order dated 22-01-2019 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.(II).U.No.172 of 2015 by which their application for compensation was dismissed, the said applicants have^preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and challenged the J.udgment and Order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 22-01-2019.

¶25

As per the grounds of appeal, it is the case of appellants that on 05-03-2015, one Mula Dayakar Reddy herein after will be referred as deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling in a train from Secunderabad to Odela. Their application for compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal. The appellants have claimed that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Railways did not examine any person except marking the DRM report as Ex.R1. Even as per Ex.R1, there is no dispute about the journey ticket possessed by the deceased. The appellants find fault with the observations made by the Tribunal wherein, it is held that the incident has been reported only by the relatives of the dcceased aftei- he ',vas takcn to hospital. Thc appellants havc claimed that there was heavy crowd in the train in which the

¶26

¶27

¶28

SSRN,J aMA No.259of20l9

¶29

deceased traveled thereby, he could not get down at the destination station and after the train crossed the station, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train. The contention of the appellants was proved not only by the evidence of AW.1 but also by the documents marked as Exs.Al to A11. But the Tribunal erred in dismissing their application thereby, they sought for com pensation .

¶30

¶31

The said original application which was registered as O.A.(IIXU).No.172 of 2015 has been filed by the appellants herein for compensation from the Union of India, South Central Railway, Secunderabad on the ground that the husband of the appellant No.1 died in an untoward incident. As could be seen from the averments made in the application and in the order, it was the case of appellants that on 05-03-2015, the deceased was travelling from Secunderabad to Odela. He purchased a journey ticket at Secunderabad railway station and boarded train bearing No.17011. While travelling in the train, he fell down from the running train between Kolanur and Potkapally, suffered grievous injuries. He was conscious after the accident, informed the same to one Marri Ravi, his farm servant and his wife over mobile phone. Immediately, the brother of the deceased by name Kiran Reddy and farm servant rushed to Odela railway station^and shifted him to Hospital but before they^{reached the Hospital,he}

¶32

SSRN,J C M A. No 259 of 2019

¶33

succumbed to the^{injuries thereby,} they sought for^compensation on the^ground that the death^was due^to an untoward incident.^He was a bonafide^passenger with a valid ticket. But claim was opposed by^{the respondent/railway, a counterwas filed againstthe} averments made in the application.^{The learnedTribunalframed} two(2) issues^namely:

¶34

Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train and died as a result of an untoward incident?

¶35

Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased ?

¶36

The Tribunal found that the deceased was not a bonafide^passenger and death^was not due to^{untowardincident,} thereby, dismissed the application filed by the appellants.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the Standing counsel for the respondent/railway. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is material before the Court to believe that the deceased having purchased the valid ticket From Secunderabad, travelled in the above referred train. In view of heavy rush in the train, he could not get down from the train at Odela and due to^jerks and^jolts in the train, he fell down from the train and sufFered^grievous injuries which resulted his death. The documents^produced before the Tribunal clearly shows that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. He died in an untoward incident but the Tribunal

¶38

\ -,./

¶39

¶40

-l SSRN.,J C.M.A. Nb.259 of 2019

¶41

wrongly dismissed the application thereby, he sought for compensation to the appellants. In support of his claim, he placed reliance on certain Judgments. The Tribunal held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and it was not untoward incident.

¶42

Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger?

¶43

Whether his death was due to untoward lncident?

¶44

Whether the appellants are entitled to compensation as prayed for?

¶45

The learned counsel has submitted that the Journey

¶46

ticket has been found with the dead body. The inquest report and post-mortem report proves the death due to rail accident. But the Tribunal, without proper appreciation of facts, dismissed the claim of appellants.

¶47

the 7. The learned Standing counsel of respondent/railway opposed the claim and submitted that the record clearly shows that the deceased did not get down at Odela station, If really he traveled from Secunderabad to Odela, he could have got down the train at destination station. The evidence further shows that he said to have called his farm servant and wife after suffering injuries. It creates any amount of doubt that really he feii down frorr the ti-ain as aileged in the petition oi- a faise claim was filed for compensation. The learned counsel further

¶48

SSRJ..U C.M.A. Nd.259 of 2019

¶49

submitted that the report filed by DRM vide Ex.R1 clearly shows that there was no such untoward incident as claimed by the appellants, thereby, they are not entitled to compensation and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶50

B. The death of the deceased with injuries after his fall from a rail beyond Odela station is established not only by the evidence oF AW.1 but also by the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A11. It may be true that the deceased was travelling from Secunderabad to Odela and his dead body was found beyond Odela railway station. But as could be seen from Ex.A1 i.e., First Information Report, it is very clear that on 05-03-2016 on receipt of information about the fall of deceased from Intercity Express near Odela and his death subsequent to the accident, the Inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. As per Ex.A3, Dy. Station Superintendant and other witnesses were present at the time of inquest on the dead body of the deceased. It was categorically stated in the report that the deceased boarded the the train after purchasing valid ticket which was present on his person, the death of the deceased was due to injuries which he received as a result of his fall from a running train. There is no evidence placed by the respondent to show that the deceased made an attempt to commit suicide. The record placed before the Court clearly shows that the deceased while travelling on the

¶51

6 SSRN,J c M.A. Nb.259 0t2019

¶52

¶53

above referred train, and after the train crossed Odela, fell from the running train and died due to injuries caused to him. It may be true the respondent filed Ex.R1 DRM report but on the face of the document, it is very clear that it was^prepared much later to the above said accident. Ex.R1 was marked without examining the person, who prepared the report.

¶54

The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a Judgment between "Vaishali Wd/o Nitesh Bhalerao V. Union of Indial , wherein it was held that if a person travelled beyond the place for which he purchased ticket, he cannot be termed as malafaide passenger at the most the passenger would liable to pay excess fare or charge for over travelled distance. He has also relied on another ludgment between "Sunitha C & others V. llnion of India2- for the same preposition. Reliance was also placed on a ludgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.20 of 2003 wherein it was observed that a passenger who died in an untoward incident after the train crossed the destination for which he purchased ticket can be treated as bonafide passenger. In the above said case, the deceased who was travelling from Guntur to Giddalur with a valid railway ticket and boarded the train in a General compartment. Though supposed to get down at Guntur

¶55

t rnws lsotvr; 2oLo7168

¶56

'2017lo⁸⁷⁸

¶57

¶58

1 C.M.A. No.259 of . SSRNJ20t9

¶59

since it was 3.00 a.m., he was sleeping and woke up when the train^passed Kistansettipalli Station and reached Uppalapadu Gate, he came to the door anxiously to see which station was coming and at that time, he accidentally fell down from the train. This Court having accepted the contention of claimants therein allowed their application. The Court observed that in view of Section 138(2Xb) of Railway Act, the deceased cannot be said to be an unauthorized^passenger as he was holding valid railway^journey ticket and as he is liable to^pay any difference between th fare^paid by him and the fare^payable in respect of the excess^journey he has made beyond the station to which he has valid ticket.

¶60

In the case on hand, there is material before the Court

¶61

to believe that the deceased has^purchased a valid ticket for his journey from Secunderabad to Odela. The evidence also proves that he fell down from the running train when the train crossed the said Odela station. Even if it is believed that he made an attempt to deboard the train-after the train crossed the station, it cannot be said that it is a self inFlicted injury. The appellants have claimed that there was heavy crowd in the train. Therefore, if the deceased fell from the train while reaching the gate to verify whether the train crossed the next station and consequently fell down from the train, it is an untoward incident thereby, the claimants are entitled to compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal

¶62

¶63

¶64

SS RN.J
c M.A. N;259 0f20r9

¶65

committed an error in dismissing the application as such, the order of the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶66

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The respondent shall pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 9o/o pet annum From the date of accident till the amount is realized.

¶67

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶68

Sd/.M.VIJAYA BHASKAR JOINT ISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,