Dismissed

Chanda Bai Pocham Madar v. the Union of India

Telangana HC2 Nov 2023CMA/183/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act against dismissal of compensation claim for death of a deceased who allegedly fell from a train. High Court upheld Tribunal's finding that appellants failed to prove deceased was a bona fide passenger.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous applications stood closed.

Chanda Bai Pocham Madar Vs the Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s3 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENWTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^SMT JUSTICE^{M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOU s PEAL NO: 183 OF 2019

¶7

Appeal Under Section 23^{of the Railway Claims TribunalAct againstthe} order dated 28.11.2018^{passed in o.A.(llu).No. 94 of 2014 on the file of the} Railway Claims Tribunal^{Bench at Secunderabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chanda Bai Pocham Madar,^{w/o late Sri Pocham Madar, aged about 58} years, occ- House wife,

¶10

ilaleshwari Pallem @ Rajeshwari^{Pocham Madar,, w/o late Sri Ramakrishna} Pallem, aged about 33^years, occ-^{House wife,}

¶11

Padma Rakesh tvluturwar @^{Padma Pocham Madar,,w/o late Rakesh} Maturwar, aged about 29^years, occ-^{House wife.}

¶12

Thirupathi Pocham^Madar, s/o^{Late Sri Pocham Madar,Aged about 27 years'} occ-^private employee.

¶13

All are r/o Mahakali Colony, No.2,^{Near old Maims Quarler, behind Mahakali} School, Chandrapur, State of^Maharashtra.

¶14

...APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS

¶15

AND

¶16

The Union Of lndia, rep by its General^{Manager, SouthCentral Railway, Rail} Nilayam, at Secunderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI S. CHANDRASEKHAR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI KALVALA SANJEEV

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURAB LE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRN'ADARSIITI

¶23

CTVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEALNo. 183 OF 2019

¶24

JUDGMEITIT:

¶25

Aggrieved by the dismissal Order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for brevity,^.the Tribunal,), in OA II (U) No. 94 ol 2OI4, dated 28. lt.2ol8, the .epplicants have preferred the present appeal.

¶26

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

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that, the applicants who are wife and children of the deceased-pocham Lix(man Madar (Madrawar) (hereinafter will be referred as deceased,) hled an application under Secrion 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, l9g7 seeking compensation of Rs.8 lakhs on account of ttre death of the deceased, who died in an untoward incident that occurred on 16/ 17 .12.2013. On 16. 12.2013 night the deceased left the house and purchased a journey ticket to travel from C:handrapur to Hyderabad and boarded Dakshin Express train. Tl-re son of the deceased went to railway station to send off the decr:ased and was present at the time of purchasing ticket. The deceaserl informed his family members that he would return back after thrr:e days. When \ U^{the deceased failed to return back after threeda5,s, the family}

¶28

MGP,J Cma 183 2019

¶29

¶30

members started for enquiring for his whereabouts and one Kola Krishna, one of the relatives of the deceased residing^at Godavarikhani, noticed about untoward train accident in newspaper and with a suspicion he went to Ramangundam Police Station to enquire about the untoward incident. After seeing the photos, he identihed the dead person in the untoward incident as deceased. It is stated that in the intervening night of 16/17.12.2013 in Dakshin Express train accidentally fallen down from the running train and succumbed to the grievous injuries on the spot. The^journey ticket of the deceased is stated to have been lost during the accident. Hence the claim.

¶31

The respondent-Railways filed written statement along with Divisional Railway manager's report denying the averments of thc application and contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and his death was not on account of any untoward incident as alleged. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application.

¶32

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶33

1 . Whetlqer the appliconts are depen-denE of the deceased?

¶34

Whetlrcr tLe deceased raas a bona fide po.ssenger of trainⁱⁿ Etestion^{and died as a result of an untou)ard incident?}

¶35

Whether the applicants ore entitled to the ompensation^os claimed. and to u.that relieJ?

¶36

MGP,J Cma 183 2019

¶37

¶38

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of^{the applicar ts, A.W.lwas} examined and got marked^{Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of respondent-} railways, no witness was examined,^{however,Divi:;ionalRailway} Manager's report was marked^{as Ex.Rl.}

¶39

The Tribunal after considering^{the evidenceon record,both} oral and documentary,^{has dismissed the applicationAggrieved by} the same, the appellants/applicants^{have filed the presentappeal.}

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the^{appellants and learned} Standing Counsel for the^{Railways and perused the record-}

¶41

g. The main contention of the learned^{counsel for the applicants} is that though the applicants^{provedtheircase by examining AW.l} and relying on the documents^{under Exs.A. 1 to A.9', the tribunal} without considering the same, has^{erroneouslyrlismissed the} application. Hence, prayed to allow^{the appeal by aw:lrdingthe just} and reasonable compensation.

¶42

Per contra, Iearned Standing iour,".l^for th:^respondent- Railways submitted that the Tribunal,^{after consitieringall the} aspects, has rightly dismissed^{the application. Hence, interference} of this Court is not necessary.

( t

4 MGP,J Cma 183 20t9

Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the tribunal is sustainable under law?

¶47

PIOINT:

¶48

This Court has perused the entire material available on record. Applicant No. 4 who is the son of the deceased was examined as AW. I and has reiterated the averments of the application According to AW. I , on the date of incident, he along with the deceased, went to the Chandrapur Railway station. He further deposed that his deceased father purchased a journey ticket for travelling from Chandrapur to Hyderabad and boarded Dakshin Express train in general compartment. He also deposed that when his deceased father did not return within three days, one of his relatives, noticed a news paper publishing that a passenger died by falling down from rhe train in the intervening night of 16/17.12.2013 between poktapally and Buisgershariff railway station and identihed the dead person in that untoward incident as deceased based on the photographs. Admittedly, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. Further no independent witness was examined by the applicants in support of their case. Thus, the question of purchasing journey ticket by the deceased is doubtful.

¶49

Further Ex.A. 1 F_1.R. discloses that on the basis of the message received from the Dy. Station Superintendent, Mancherial, r*hich is based on the information given by the Keyman of Unit No.6

MGP,J Cma 183 2019

on 77.12.2013 at l0:3O hours that he found a malo dead body at KM No.316/ 13-15 between up and down tract between Pothkapally and Sisugirisharif railway stations. According to E)x.A.3, Inquest report, discloses that the dead body of the deceaseC was lying in supine position. Ex.A.4, postmortem examination report, shows that the deceased sustained crush injury to both le1is, amputation of both lower limbs other internal injuries.

¶55

On behalf of the respondent-Railways, no witness was examined, however, Divisional Railway Manager's reF,ort marked as Ex.R1, wherein it was concluded that, the deceased vr'as not a bona fde^{passengerand no such incidentof fall of the passengerfrom the} train was reported to the railway authorities by anyone and the nature of injuries, would indicate that it is not a cas: of accidental fall from the train. In view of the above facts and cir,rumstances, it is clearly established through the evidence of AW. I coupled with the documents frled by them that the applicants failed to discharge their initial burden of proving that the deceased was rrot a bona fide passenger and no body witnessed while the deceased fallen down from the train. Hence, this Court is of the considere,l opinion that the Railway Claims Tribunal has discussed the evidence available on record in detail aIId came to a correct conclusir,n and rightly dismissed the claim application. Thus, there are no grounds to

¶56

MGP,J Cma I8J 2019

¶57

¶58

interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and^{the appealis devoid}

¶59

of merits and liable to be dismissed

¶60

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is^dismissed.

¶61

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall^standclosed.

¶63

SD/.B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT GIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Secunderabad.(with records) 2. One CC to Sri S- Chandrasekhar, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, Advocate [OpUCl 4. Two CD Copies plp

MY^w

''',.q. : fs' +t'( l

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211112023

ffi

j I

ra-. t) r \ :<br>!.
a-
..-;'
^ir ,1t
o $ .,i

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.183^{of 2019}

{
ffi ?

DISMISSING THE^C,M.A. WITHOUT COSTS.

¶78

G
"f*
C

¶79

'.^,,.,, "^j ',' ,'?*:-^.^-r "-ii.ri.i: i

Chanda Bai Pocham Madar v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanda Bai Pocham Madar 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

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Komma Manemma and 3 Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kum. Golusula Umarani and 2 Others

P Shankar, Warangal Dist and Anr. Vs Union of India, Rep by Gm/ Scr Secunderabad

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Nakula Yashavantha Reddy and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Hyd Vs Thangeli Vital, Nalgonda District and Ano

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kaki Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Nalgonda District and Ano