Partly allowed

Kamade Gajanan v. The Union of India

Telangana HC16 Nov 2023CMA/1154/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that Railway Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim by disbelieving the bona fides of the injured appellant. Evidence including ticket authenticity and medical records were accepted. Awarded Rs. 5 lakhs for amputation and crush injury, noting no post-accident amendment benefits apply. Remitted for payment with liberty to withdraw. Dismissed denial of bonus.

What did the court decide?

Awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- (adjusting for 1990 rules) for amputation and crush injury; dismissed below order; directed deposit by Railway.

Kamade Gajanan Vs The Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁵³ I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STAT€ OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶7

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEA L NO: 1154 OF 2019

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 23 of Raitway Claims Tribunal Act against the Judgment and decree dated 24.10.2019 made in OA il(U).No. 78 of 2018bn the file of the Court of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Elench.

¶9

Between:

¶10

[qlq{"^{Gajanan, S/o. Rao Saab, agedabout 43 years. ooc-Nit, r/o H.No.2-} 2-33412, Ambedkar Nagar, Aditabad tbwn, District Aditabad

¶11

...AppellanUApplicant

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

...RespondenU Respondent

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri S. Chandra Shekar

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : Smt. G. Sampada, SC for Railways

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUOGMENT

¶18

.?.

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Civil Miscellaneous Ap^peal No.1154 OF 2019

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

Aggrieved by the dismissal Order passed try the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad^(for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), in OA II(U) No.78 of 2018, dated 24.10.2019, the applicant has preferred the present appeal.

¶22

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that, the applicant filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 read with Section 724-A of the Railway Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.8 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident that occurred on 31.10.2016. As per the applicant, on 31. 10.2016 he went to Adilabad Railu'ay station to go to Kinwat, at about 2-3O p.m. and after purchasing a^journey ticket bearing No. APA 02779922 Ex.Adilabad - Kinwat boarded train No.57552 passenger train. While travelling he went to washroom and due to^jerks at Ambadi railway station, he lost the balance and accidentally fallen down from the running train at Ambadi Railway Station. His both Iegs went inside the wheels of the train and got crushed. Railway staff as well as other passengers

¶24

¶25

MGP,J Cna ll54²⁰¹⁹

¶26

lifted him and^{Guard of the said train carried him up to I(nwat and} then referred him to^{GovernmentHospital,I(inwat and after} providing hrst aid they^{have shifted him to Government Hospital'} Based on the^{message,GovernmentRaiiwayPolice tookup} investigation. It^{is furthercontendedthat in the said incident, his} right leg below knee^{was amputated, left foot vrasgrievously} crushed and^{doctorsmadegraftingby removing fle sh fromthe other} area. But^{he is unableto walk with supportof left leg and wasbed} ridden ald became^{dependent on his familymembers'He spent} huge amounts for his^{treatment in private hospitalsHence'the} claim.

¶27

The respondent^{railway filed counter denyingthe averments} of the application^{and contendedthat the applicant is r-ot a bona} Ttde^{passengerand he is not in possessionof journey ticketand} therefore,^{prayed to dismiss the application'}

¶28

Based on the^{above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the} following issues:

¶29

Whether the^{applicantwas a bona hde passenger of train} and sustained^{injuriesas a result of an untoward incident?}

¶30

Whether^{the applicant is entitledto claim the compensation} as prayed for and^{to what relief.)}

¶31

¶32

MGP,J <'ma I 154 2019

¶33

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the applicants. A.W. I was examined and Exs.Al to A7 were marked. On behalf o[ respondentrailways, no rvitness was examined, however, Divisional Railway Manager's Report was marked as Ex.R1.

¶34

The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the applicant has filed the present appeal.

¶35

Heard Sri S.Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.G.Sampada, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways and perused the record.

¶36

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though the applicant has proved his case by examining himself as AW.l and also by reiying on the documents under Exs.Al to A7, without considering the same, the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the application and therefore, prays to allow the appeal by awarding just and reasonable compensation to the applicant.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Railways submitted that the Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, has rightly dismissed the application. Hence, interference of this Court is not necessary.

¶38

¶39

A,,IGP,.1 Cnn I 151 2019

¶40

This Court has perused thc entire evidencc and the documents fiied by the appiicant and the Divisional^Raiirvay I{anager's Report hled by the respondent-Railways. AW. 1 who is the claimant has reiterated the contents of the application and deposed about the manner of the accident by stating that on the date of accident i.e. 31.10.2016 he has purchased^journey ticket and boarded passenger train No.57552 and^{rvl-rile he was traveling,} he went to the wash room due to the^jerks, he has accidentally fallen down from the train and sustained injr-rries^{aud his right leg} below knee was amputated and left foot^was crushed^{and thathe} spent huge amount for his treatment.^{He relied on Exs.Al to A7.} Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to^discredithis testimony.

¶41

A perusal of Ex.Al message copy^{shows that, it is a message} received from Station Superintendent, Kinwat,^whereinitis mentioned that as^per memo^{of Guard of 57552 at Kinwat, a ma-[e} person aged about 40 years fallen down and^{injured at KM 124} 16^at ABX station. Injured was brought and^{handed over to ambulanceat} Kinwat for further treatment at Government^{Hospital.As per Ex.A2} attested copy of General Diary^{entry, it is O.P. GRP, Kinwat, Xerox} copy of injury register discloses that the^{injuredmale person falien} down at railway station Ambade from Adilabad^{Purnapassenger} train and received injuries and he was admitted in^Government

¶42

¶43

MGP,J (.mu I 151 201 9

¶44

4 Hospital, Gokuda, Kinwat. His right leg amputated from knee and left leg foot was grievously injured. Ex.A3 is journey ticket bearing No.O2779922 dated 31.1O.2O16. Ex.A4 attested cop-1. of place of incident panchanama shows that GRP, Kinwat havc conducted panchanama, wherein it is stated that, the injured person was fallen down at Ambadi railway station from Adilabad passenger train and received amputation of right leg and other grievous injuries to the left foot and on the head. No money or any precious articles were found with injured. Ex.AS is the copy of Aadhar card of the applicant. Ex.A6 is the medical record o[ the applicant. Ex.A7 is letter from RIMS Hospital.

¶45

It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute regarding the manner of the accident and the injuries sustained by the applicant. As per the record, the applicant has travelled in a passenger train bearing No.57552 and has fallen down. Further there is no dispute that the applicant has taken treatment in Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Adilabad.

¶46

Coming to the Divisional Railway Manager,s Report, which shows that the RPF has examined seven witnesses including the applicant. All the witnesses have categorically statecl that they received information through Guard of the passenger train No.57552 and that on 31.1O.2O16 the train arrived ar Ambadi

¶47

¶48

MGP,J Cnu 115.t_2019

¶49

station at 15.58 hours and after one minute^{stoppagewhen started} from above station noticed that one unknown^{person had fallen} down and injured while trying to^{catch the running train as sllch he} stopped the train and he^{was not in possessionofjourneyticket.}

¶50

¶51

It is pertinent to state that^{Ex.A3 original ticket was filed by} the applicant and the details^{of the journey ticket are mentioned in} the Divisional Railway^{Manager's report asticket bearing} No.A2779922 dated 3i.10.2016.^{Duringthe course of enquiries,on} 18.6.2018 obtained ticket^{genuineparticularsfrom Chief} Reservation Inspector,^{S.C.Railway,Secunderabad.[t came to} know that the ticket having No.^{APA02779922was issuedat} Adilabad to Kinwat on 31'1O.2O16.

¶52

It is also pertinent to state^{that the claimantwas examined as} AW. 1 and filed Exs.Al to^{A7 and has dischargedhis initial burden} to show that he^{was travelled in the train No.57552 passenger with} a valid^journey ticket.^{Further the respondent-Railwaysdid not} adduce any rebuttal^{evidence but concluded that the applicant is} not a bona hde^{passenger.However,as per Ex'A3 original journey} ticketandbasedonthegenuineparticularsfromChiefReservation Inspector, South Central^{Railway, Secunderabad,it isclearly} established that the applicant^{possessedvalid journey ticket and he} is a bona f-rde passenger.

¶53

¶54

MGP-,J Cma I 154 2019

¶55

17 . Now coming ro the aspect of falling down from the running train. Admittedly, tbere are no eyewitnesses to the incident. However, the appticant being the injured has categorically stated that while he went to the washroom, due to the jerks, he lost the balance and accidentally fell down from the running train at Ambadi Railway Station and sustained grievous lnJUrles It is also important to note that as per the Act, the enquiry has to be conducted within 60 days from the accident and should file the Divisional Railway Manager,s report. But in the present case, the Divisional Railway Manager,s report is filed after two years of the incident. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the applicant has successfully discharged his initial burden and proved that he traveled in the alleged train as a bona fde passenger and sustained grievous injuries in an untoward incident. Therefore, considering the entire evidence and the documents filed by the applicant including the journey ticket, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and dismissed the claim application. Hence, the applicant is entitled for compensation.

¶56

Coming to the compensation, according to the applicant, his right leg below knee was amputated and his left foot was crushed in

¶57

¶58

N{GP..I Cma I 151 2019

¶59

the said^{incident.Medical Recordof Rajiv Gandhi Instituteof} Medical^{Sciences (RIMS),Adilabad shows that the applicant has} sustained^{traumaticamputationof right foot and severe crush} injury to^{his left foot.Thus the appiicantisentitledfor} compensation^{of Rs.4,0O,O00/-for amputation of below knee and} Rs. 1,O0,OOO/-^{for crush injury of left foot, which is a non-schedule} injury, as^{prescribedunder Part III of Schedule annexedto the} Railway^{Accidents and UntowardIncidents(Compensation)Rules,} DgO. Thus^{in all the applicant is entitled for Rs'5,OO,OOO/-.} Since the^{accident occurredon31.10.2016, which isbefore} amendment^{of the Railway Accidentsand Untoward Incidents} (Compensation)^{Rules,1990,and the amountis awardedas per the} amended^{Rules, no interest isawardedon the compensation} amount.

¶60

In^{the result, the Civil MiscellaneousAppeal is partiy allowed} and the order^{passedby the Railway Ctaimd Tribunal,Secunderabad} Bench, in^{OA II(U) No.78 of 2O18,dated 24.10.2019 is set aside.} Consequently^{claim applicationis partly allowed by awardingthe} compensation^{of Rs.5,OO,O(X)/-The respondent Railwaysis directed} to deposit the^{compensationbeforethe Tribunalwithin a period of two} months from the^{date of receiptof a copy of this judgment' On such} deposit, the applicant^{ispermittedtowithdraw theentire}

¶61

¶62

¶63

lvlc^P 'J Cma^1t542019

¶64

1l ir l I

¶65

compensation^{without furnishing any}

¶66

securitY.^{Thereshall be no order}

¶67

as to^costs

¶68

Pending^{Miscellaneous applicattons'}

¶69

if anY,^{sha1lstandclosed}

='' 5b?$ltpfiiR

//TRUE^COPY//

SEGTION^OFFICER

To,

1 2 3 4^H: Two^te CD^{i: h?sTl^i;|:iiisffi CoPies' d:i,$# Fike,oP u c} TYTVNJB

A(-

I a.

-,e

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611112023

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.1154 of 2019

R THE s&
o ao
,rp
u o S1(
10 ttAfr ME z
o
*
Qt Q q{ T H t) {

¶86

APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED

¶87

es-"ol

Kamade Gajanan v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamade Gajanan v. The Union of India

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

M/S M.G.M. Rubber Company, Kolkata. Vs Union of India Sc Rly, Secbad. and Another

M/S. Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kamble Ganapathi and 3 Others

Union of India and 2 Others Vs M/S. B.R. Enterprises and Another

Chintalapally Manikya Reddy (died per LRs) Vs Chinthapalli Laxmi Narayan Reddy

Pulumati Krishna Murthy Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Venishetty Panchakshari Vs The Assistant Commissioner