Allowed

Velishoju Muthaiah,Muthyam (Died) v. the Union of India

Telangana HC15 Sept 2023CMA/186/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana allowed CMA filed under Section 23 of RCT Act against Railway Claims Tribunal order dismissing compensation claim for accidental death of passenger from moving train. Court held deceased was bona fide passenger despite over-travelling and awarded Rs. 8 Lakhs with interest directing railways to deposit amount.

What did the court decide?

Awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to applicants along with interest @7% p.a.; set aside impugned order dated 13.11.2018; directed railways to deposit amount within two months of judgment receipt

Velishoju Muthaiah,Muthyam (Died) Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE^{FIFTEENTHDAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEM.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶6

ctvlL Ml SCELLAN^{EOUS APPEAL No: 186 0F 2019}

¶7

AppealUnderSection23oftheRailwayclaimsTribunalAct,againstthe Luaornei[ dated 13.11.2018^{made in OA ll (u) No'6s of 2013on the file of the} Cor"rt oitf* Railway^{Claims Tribunal,Bench at Secunderabad'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Velishoiu Muthaiah'^{Muthyam (DIED)}

¶10

Velishoiu Prarneela,^{w/o Sri V. Muthaiah,agedabout.69 years,occ- House} ' ;d";/'; ir.-r.iJ.i2+-in,r,'i#rrlriiii,-potfrrapallv villasi:, Mandal odela' District Karimnagar.

¶11

...APPELLANTIAPPLICANT

¶12

AND

¶13

The Union Of lndia,^{repby its General Manager, South Central Railway' Rail} Nilayam, at^{Secunderabad.}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the^{Appellants: SRl. S CHANDRASEKHAR}

¶16

Counsel for the^{Respondent:SRI A PRAVEEN KUMARYADAV} (SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT) The Court made^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶17

THE HONO URABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL MISC ELLANFOUS APPEAL No. 186 of2Ol9

¶18

JUDGMENT:

¶19

This Civil Miscellaneous Application is hled by the applicants under Section 23 of the Raillvay Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (tor brevit5r hereinafter referred to as the ActJ aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2018 in OA II (U) No. 68 of 2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, wherein the ciaim petition filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,O0,00 O / - for the death of V.Satish Kumar, was dismissed.

¶20

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

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of Late V.Satish Kumar (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased"l. On 2a.O2.2O13 the deceased purchased a^journey ticket bearing No. 834631g6 from Kazipet ro Kolanoor and boarded the Nagpur passenger train. Due to late night, the deccased slept in the train. After crossing Kolanoor railway station, the deceased woke up and noticed that the kolanoor railway station was alreacly passed. In hurry burry the deceased while trying to get down from thc running train, accidently fBll€n down from the train between kolanoor and peddapally

MGP,J cMA 186-2019

.ii

raiiway stations. As a result, lhe deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot at Km.No.300/3-5. Based on the complaint, RPS Mancherial registered a case in Crime No. 51 of 2013. The applicants, who are the dependents of the deceased, have frled claim application for Rs.8,OO,O001- as compensation in view of decision of the Apex Court in Rathi Menon us lJnion of Indiat.

¶26

The respondent frled counter denying the averments of the application. It was further contended that the deceased was not a bona ftde passenger and thc death of the deceased is not on account of an untoward incident but the deceased died due to his sole negligence by getting down from the running train, which is a prohibited act. It was also contended that the incident has happened beyond destination station i.e., Kolanoor, as such ticket has no evidentiary value. Hence, the respondent railway is not liable to pay compensation and frnally prayed to dismiss the application.

¶27

Before the Tribunal, the applicants, in order to substantiate their claim, the applicant No. 1 got examined as AW. 1 and Exs.A.l to A.7 were marked. Ex.A. I is the hrst information report, Ex.A.2 is the SS message, Ex.A.3 is the inquest report, Ex.A.4 is the attested copy of journey ticket, '^zootscc lcriy^{13t I}

7 /

MGP,J cMA_186 2019

Ex.A.S is the pME report, Ex.A.6 is the final report and Ex.A.7 is the copy of adhar card of AW. 1. On behalf of the respondent, RW. 1 was examined and Exs.R.l to R.3 were marked. Ex.R. I is the DRM report, Ex.R.2 is the copy of rough journal, Ex.R.3 is the copy of adhar card of RW. l.

¶33

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, observed that any criminal act on the part of the passengers exonerates the railway administration from payment of compensation under the proviso Section 124_A of t.Ile Act and dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶34

Heard both sides and perused the entire record.

¶35

The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applisanls have proved their case by examining AW. I and rellng on documents under Exs.A. I to A.7, but the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously dismissed the claim application basecl on the evidence adduced on behalfof the respondent.

¶36

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent contended that.the deceased has travelled beyond destination station i.e., Kolanoor, as such Ex.A.4 ticket has no evidentiary value and

¶37

MGP,.' CMA 1E6^{20 19}

¶38

¶39

*rereb-y tLre^{deceasedwas not a bona.ftdepassengers from} Koianoor. Railway^{Station to PeddapallyRerilwayStation and as} such, he^{would fall undet the exceptions enumerated undcr} Section 124-A^{of the Act.}

¶40

io. Now the Point^{for consideration is:}

¶41

" Wtetler^{thedeceasedu)cts bona Jile} Wssenger^{of NagpurPassengcr.TraintrauelLingfi'otn} Kazipet to^{Kolanoor on 28'02 2O13 and thereby*Le} applicants^{are entitled} for^{corrlF'ensation? "}

¶42

Admittedly,^{the deathof the deceasedoccurred due to} acciclentalfallfromtheNagpurPassengertrain,whichis clate of lhe^acciderlt' travelling^{from Kazipetto Kolarroor on} "he The Tribunal^{on appreciat'ion of oral and documentary evidencc} came to^{the conclusionthat the train ticket'was purchasedby} thedeceasedtotravelfromKazipettoKolanoorandthe deceased^{was suPposedto get down at Kolanoor Railway} Station, however,^{the attemptof the deceased to get down from} the said train^{could not be successful' as he slept due to late} night hours^{and whenhe woke up the trainpassedthe Kolanoor} railway station,^{where he supposed to get down' In hurry burry'} whilethedeceasedtriedtogetdownfromtherunningtrain'the deceasedfelldownfromthemovingtrainandaccidentallyfallen fromthetrainandsustainedfatalinjuriesanddiedonthespot.

¶43

)

¶44

MGP,J CMA 186 20 19

¶45

Now the issue to be resolved is whether the deceased can be held to be a bona ftde passenger having been travelled beyond destination station i.e., Kolanoor. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in A, Laxmi @ Laxni @ Redd.gmo.lla Renuka and others u. Union of Indta2, wherein this Court by placing reliance ot B. Naragana a. Unlon of Indias, held as

¶46

follows:

¶47

"At the most, the passengers, tulto travelled. beyond their destination in a train, would be liable to pag excess fare^{or charge} for^{the ouer travelled distance. But merelA} on the ground that a person trquelled begond his destination in a trairl" it cannot be leld tlut he is not a bonafide passenger tDitllout a proper p(rss or ticket. The mere fact that a passenger ha.d- ouer-trauelled begond the destination does not necessailA u)afiant a finding tllat he wo.s rtot a bonafrde passengeL though such person is liable to pag proper or excess fare to the Railuags.'

¶48

In Sunitha C. and others v. Urion of Indiaa the High

¶49

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam held as follows

¶50

"The said. rule has also been relied on bg the High Court of Bombag in Vqishali Blvlerao v- ()nion of India. The conclusion" uhich is inescapable on a reading of Sections 55, 123, 124, 124-4 and 138 of tle Raihlags Act, 1989 and th.e prouisiott-s of the manual i.s tlat an unintentional overiding oJ the joumeg for uhich a ticket is purchased ts an acciderlt rthich can be arected bA pagnEnt of fine or purctuse of a ticket back to the oiginal destinntiotL"

¶51

In view of the principle laid down in the above citations, it

¶52

is evident that merely because the passenger over-travelled the

¶53

'Cue^{No.682 of 2016 decided on 26.tO.2OtB} t CMA No.20 o12003 decided on 22.07.20t0 o 20l7 ecl 878

MGP,J cMA 186 2019

destination, it cannot^{be said that the said passenger is not a} bona fide^{passenger.Thereby, the applicants being the legal} representatives of deceased,^{are entitledfor compensation'}

¶59

Coming to the^{quantumof compensation,in case of death} in an accident which^{occurred before amendmenti'e',on} O2.lO.2OlO, the^{prevailingbasicfigure in respect of death case} was Rs.4.0O lakhs,^{which has been subsequently enhanced to} Rs.8.0O lakhs as^per the^{Railway Accidents and Untoward} Incidents^{(Compensation)Amendment Rules,2O 16' At this} juncture, it is appropriate to ret-er to the^{decision of the Apex} Court in the case of^{Union ofInd.ia vs. Radha YqdanF,}

¶60

wherein it was held as^follows:

¶61

"10. Tlrc issue raisedⁱⁿ tle^{matler does notrealLg} reqlire ang elaboration as^{in ouruieut,the judgment of this} Court m tLE case of^{RinaDeut, 2018 ACJ1441 (SC)'is uery} clear. What this Court^{hqs laid doun i.s tt].,,t the omountof} compensqtion^pagable on^{the date ofaccidentuith} reasonabte rate of interest^shall first^{be calanlatedlfthe} amount so calculated.^{is less tlnntheamount} Prescibed'^as on th.e date af tte atuard,^{the claimant uouldbe entitledto} higher of these ttao^{amounts. Tlerefore,iJ the liabitity-had} aiser before tlc amendment^{was broughl in, the basic} figure ttould bi as^{per the *he&tleas utasin existence beforetlle} am.end-ment and on^suchbosic figure^{reasonablerate of} interest uould be catanlated.^{Iftherebe ang dilference} betueen the^{amountso calqtloted and tlle amouftt} Prescibed in the Schedule as^{on the date of the auard, tle higher of tttto} figures^{raould be tfle mea-sure of conqtensationFor ilstance'} ii c"se o1 a death^{in an arcid-entuthichoe'uned before} amendment, tle^basic figare^{wouldbe Rs.4,00,O0O/ - If' ofter} opplgtng reasonable^{rate oJ interest, the} rtnaL fi'Wre^uereto ii w1t-" Rs,8,oo,oo0/-, uhich uas^{broughtin bg ua! of} amendment, the claimqnt^{uould be erltitledto RsS,OO,OOO/} " $,^{hotueuer, tlg amount of origin@l contPensationwithrgte gf} interest tuere to exceed tlte sum of^{RI.8,OO,0O0/-the}

*- *q2004) 2 scc 1

MGP,J cMA 1a6_2019

compen-sation uould be in tem:a of figure in excess oJ Rs-8,OO,OO0/-. The idea is to alford E benefrt of tte amendment, to the erte possible. Thus, according to us, th.e matter is crystal clear.'

¶66

The applicants are also entitled for interest @ Zo/o per annum on the compensation arnount as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kamukagi v. tlrrion oJ Inld.aa. From the date of application i.e., 01.04.2013 to the date of order i.e., 15.09.2O23, the applicants are entitled for interest for 10 years 05 months = 125 months

¶67

77 . Thus, the interest entitled by the applicants is calculated as follows:

¶68

Rs. 4,OO,O00/ - x 7 / tOO = Rs.2,9t,667 / - (for 1O years 05 months i.e., 125 months)

¶69

Therefore, the interest along with the compensation amount, to which the applicants are entitled prevailing at the time of the accident comes to Rs.6,91,667 /- (Rs.4,OO,O0O/_ + Rs.2,9t,667 l-).

¶70

However, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rad.ha Yqdaa's case (supra), if, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the hnal hgure were to be less than Rs.g,OO ,OOO / -, which was brought in by way of latest amendment, the applicants would be entitled to Rs.8,OO,00O/-. If , however, the

¶71

t ,

¶72

6 Civd Appeal No. 3799 of 2023 (Arising out of SLp (C) No. 17062 /20221 decided on 16.05.2023

¶73

8 MGP,J CIVIA 186 201S

¶74

amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, the compensation vrould be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,0O,00O/-. In the instant case, the final figure comes to Rs.6,91,667/-. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,OO,0OO/ -.

¶75

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by awarding the compensalion amount of Rs.8,O0,00O/- and the order dated 13.11.2018 in OA II (U) No. 68 of 2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad is set aside. The respondent Railways is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the applicants are entitled to withdraw the compensation amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶76

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

sd/ '",'#$pt?sE

/TTRUE COPY"

SECTION^OFFICER

'o^{,. ,n" Railway Clainrs Tribunal' SectrnderabadBench' Sednderabad(Wth} ,Affigikitiff^{HAlPff ?rrffivt3)'rsJ?'#%"'*'}