Dismissed

Union of India v. Rayilla Sarangapani and 2 Others

Telangana HC1 Mar 2023CMA/316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenged the compensation award by the Railway Claims Tribunal. The appellant claimed the death was due to the deceased jumping from a moving train. The High Court analyzed witness evidence confirming the deceased slipped and fell, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the awarded compensation.

What did the court decide?

None. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed.

Union of India Vs Rayilla Sarangapani and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THESTATE OF'IELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND'TWENTY THREE

¶3

t PRESENT I THEHONOURABL E'SRI IUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶4

,1,i^{Civil Miscellaneous AppealNo. 316 of 2022}

¶5

AppeaI filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against rhd Judgment^{da'ted24.03.2022 made inClaim Application} No.OAr(U)l No.49 of 2O21jon the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secund erabad Bench, Secunderabad.

¶6

Berlveen: lll Ii fifi i Lnfiiu; ry"p."r"ntealUy tlrll its General Manager, Sourh Cenrrat Railway, SecunderabAd.l^tl t, "Apperrant/Respondent' AND^il I lii ,l.t'

¶7

Rayillh Sarangapani/S/o. Rayilla Chennaiah, Aged about 72years. 2. Rayillh Sarldhya Rarii,lD/o. Rayilla Sarangapani, Aged about 27 years. 3. Rayillh Rarhadevi, D/o. Rayilla Sarangapani, Aged about 25 yeais. (All are R/olH:No.2-4-96, Bukka Bazar, Mahabubabad, Warangal District.) l' 1 ..Respondents/ Appellants. ll

¶8

IA NO: 3OF2022

¶9

rutitit.,f under Section 151 CPC prayhg that in the circumstances stated in thd affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including Order dt. 24/03/2022 in oA rr(u) No+ 49 of 2O21.pn the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderab ad Bench at Secunderabad, pending C.M.A.

¶10

Counsel foi Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General. i I Counsel fotr Sri Munnangi Lakshma Reddy. I The CourtCourt }UDGMENT: t il II ITf i i I I

¶11

The CourtCourt }UDGMENT:

¶12

THE HON( URABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RI\O NAIDU

¶13

CIVIL UISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.II16 OF 20"22

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

'l'his^(. ,r,il Miscellaneous Appeal has been p^-efrrrrecl b,v the Union rf India, represented by its^(iene'ral Mana,qer, South Ct:r, rid Railu'ay, Sr:cunderabad, chil lt:ngrng the Judqm ent r - the Railwat, Claims Tribunrrl, Sr r:unclerabad Ren:h. in )laim Application No.OAII(U) Nc.1';t af 2021 tlated 24,(-t :.'.2022 by which the Tribunal i*i'artled an zrmount oi 11s.8,00,0O0/- torvards compensatiorr in favour of the respc, rrients/ applicants

¶16

Tl-ris r: .rpeal has been preferred on the :li lulrd that tl're Railu,a., tl aims Tribunal did not apprr:ciate l.he written statcmcnt ]'L r:<l tly the appellarlt herein in il prol)er u ay and comrrrittec. rJ- error in granting Rs.8,0,1,00C,/ - t:u,ards coml)er saL - r-r. The appellant has claimed .hat thr: Tribunal did nol alrr r:( ciate the contention of th,-. appr:llant t]rat therr: u,as n(^r: an-lse of action for the respo^-rdent.s to Frle the above rele'r^'ed claim. The' Tribunal oughi to h:rve apprecirrtec hat the case is not an accidelttal ftl fr,tm 1l're

¶17

¶18

train but it is a suspicious^{death by way of self inflicted} injury. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled^{for any} compensation.

¶19

The appellant further claimed that the^Tribunal committed an error by holding that the appellant^herein failed to prove that the incident^{falls underexceptions (a) to} (e) of 124A of Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal^{failed to} appreciate the evidence of Mr.M.Raghu,^{who lvas examined} as RW. 1 and as^per his affidavit,^{he waspresent on duty at} Warangal Railway Station at the time of^{above referred} accident and his evidence^{was very clear that he lound a} lady aged about 6O years^{jumped from the runningtrain to} the platform. Thereby, the Tribunal^{committed an error in} allowing ttre application flled by the^{respondentshereinas} such the appellant sought for setting^{aside the impugned} Judgment.

¶20

3, As could be seen from the record,^itseemsthat respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have filed^{the above referred} application under Section 16 of the^{RailwayClaims} Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 724A^{and 125 of the} Railways Act, 1989 ald claimed compensation of

¶21

I I I

¶22

Rs.8,3O,OO3 r rr.ith inrerest at the rate of 9^r'6 l(:r annum from the dr,rtr ,1rf sn161112161 inciclent rvhereu nder rlre^..l,ife of respondr:nt h r. 17'applicant dierd in a railwa" acr:iclr:nt 4 . Ac,rorcli 'rg to the application filed by the r:r, pondent, it wils th c:i ' speclfic plea that on 75.Oi,.21)14 one Smt.I)hz:Lran i .r (trereinafter referred to as 'the d::ceilsed'), who is rhe ir ifr: rrf respondent No.1, along vvitl her elder sister Sarasrr al hi proceeded to Warangal Railr,val. Station with eL vieu' 1,, go to her native place i.e., Mahabrrb,,Lbad and she purr:h:rsr C a. ticket for l-ravelling frorn Wrlranfaal to MahabubaLra, . Alter sometime, Train No.lii5ozl (Sihiidi to Visakhapat,: i: n) zrrrived to platform No.1 arLd tht: rjeceased boarded inlo 11e-ireral^{compartment.Furl} her, on being inforrned bv l-rc ,:o-passenger that the sai l tra .n di l not halt I{ah abr-rl a rad, she tried to get down frorn r he train but suddenl.,, the train started, due to whi,:h, sJ-rt: slipped and fell clov'rcrr platform No. 1, as a result she srrst,eined injurie s. Imrtr : c1 iately, she was shifted to MGI\4 ) Iospital, Warangal, \, lcreat u,hile Llndergoing t^-eat[ e]tt, she succumb:d t,: :injuries at about O7.3O P.M. orL 1._-re same da.v.

\ffiffi
\ ';vi*

The respondents filed petition seeking^{compensation,} which was opposed by the appellant herein by^r,r'ay of written statement. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the follorrging issues:

¶27

<br>

¶28

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide^passenger of train in question and died as a result^{of an} untoward incident ?

¶29

1. Whether the incident falls under any^{exception of} Section 124-A or not ?

¶30

1. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependent(s)^of the deceased ?

¶31

¶32

1. Whether the Applicant(s) is /are entitled^to compensation as claimed ? And to^{what relief?}

¶33

In support of respondents case, respondent No.l^got examined as AW. 1 and^got marked Exs.A.^{1 to} A.l2^{and one} Smt.Odapalli Saraswathi was examined^{as AW.2. On behalf} of the appellant herein, Mr.M.Raghu, RPF-Head^Constable, who was supposed to be on duty on platform No.l at^the relevant time, was examined as RW.¹ and^{Exs.R. I to R.3} were got marked. The Tribunal after considering^{the oral} and documenta4r evidence, came to a conclusion that^the respondents/ applicants are able to establish their^claim and accordingly, awarded compensation as stated above.

¶34

¶35

7 lle ::r'. icarrncri counscl :rppearing for b,rth r.he parties

¶36

8 I\lor, t r: l)oints that u or-rlci emerge for' ,i:t errtinalion

¶37

itrc

¶38

1. \11 :r I're'r the death ol the dece rsc:d .r as clur: to L il {l\r'ard incider-r1 i'

¶39

2l) V/lr rt he r the deatl: of the der:eas,:,i was selfinfl cted in jury as claimed by the altpr:llan-. herein ?

¶40

1. V/h't rer the Tribun;rl committ,.d :r:t., error ln ar,. i rrling t:ompenszrtion, if so, rr,hett crt.-re said Au rrl is li:rble to be set aside ?

¶41

Thelt: is rro cLispute about the relationsltic between thc de<;east- I and lhe respo n<1ents/ applir:ants^'lhr:re rvas no ctis;rute Ll ,out the journe.y of the dec:ased .,rlong r,r,ith her elder sr tr'r-AW.2 on the zrbove statecL date. Ac,:ording to ttre applr a.ic,n filed b5r the respondents zLncl as ler the evidr:nr:e of . ,\r/s.l and 2, it is very crystal clear tltat on the firtefr,Ll dar t he dr:ceased :rnd AW.2 reachr:rl Wiuangal Raihi'av St rt on u,ith a view to proceecl t,)wat'ds Mahrrbrrbabr d and they purc-hased a vali<l ticker. It is the specrlic case o the respondents that the deccaserl bcarded u,rong t-rair-r ,1,-rir:h rnay not hait at Mahal>uberl>erd zrrd on bcin1l inforrn rl the same b), the co-passenfler. l.]re de:ease:d

.'i lli

made an attcmpt to Eet^{down frorn thc train, intFrc} meantime, train was started, resulting which, she^slipped from the train and fell down on platform No.l and^thereby she sustained severe injuries^{and caused her death.}

¶46

The appellart herein took a specific stand^{that the} deceased, who was aged about^{6O years, jumped from the} running train. Thereby, it amounts to self-inflicted^injury but not untoward incident. In support of its^{contention, the} appellant herein got examined^RW. l.^RW. I being^an employee of the same department, it is^quite natural^for him to support the case of the appellant rather^{than to} depose the true facts. The evidence^{of RW. 1 is based on the} DRM report. The copy of the statement said to^havebeen made by RW. 1 is found in DRM report,^{whichwas prepared} belatedly but not as per the rules. Once if the^appellant want to avoid the liability, it may not be diflicult for^them to plant evidence of its own employee to depose,^{as if the} deceased made an attempt to^jump from the train,^the appellant herein did not try to examine any^independent witness. It may not be difficult for therh to secure^the independent witness, who are available on the^platform.

¶47

¶48

Nobodr. f'r-,; r the lrzun or other person i lxcsr 'nt in the shops at rl,ttfornr u,r:re r,xamined to slrotr tt at the clece ast:d^ju n oed fi'onr the trzrin. AW.2 ir; ir¹¹ ,L tc' natllral s,itness,. rlr . ; i Lc,lon.: pl rn,' her sister at the tinrc )l th,r above said ac,:ider- t.. Tl-re e viclence coupled u,ith t,'re in,lr Les report clearlv sl^.o'^'s that 1l're cleath of the d:cr:asr'.[ ,ras arr untor.r,'ard rn ir lent.

¶49

Alter n.etrculol.lsly analysing the entirc nlaterial available on r-ecord, this Court is of the consiclered view t1-rat there a r: no mc'rits in this appeal anc it is l able to be dismrssed

¶50

In vir:ri oi the discussion made hereir befort:. rhis Civil Miscellaneo. is Al)peal is dismissed.

¶51

Pendin '; rniscellaneous applications., if e ny, shall

¶52

stand closcil I [o wever, there sha]l be no ordet' ,r s _o <:osts

¶53

S.t/ Ti.S CIITRANJEEVI J()II{T REGISTRAR //TRUE^coPY / / I i))/ -.,L SI]( T'II)N OFFICER

¶54

To, 1 The Railrvay⁽ arms Tribunal, Ser:ur-rderabad Bettclr, !ircurrcerabad 2 One CC torSir' .lirdi Pravc'en Kunrar, Deputy Solicitor^(i,:neral [OPUC] 3 One CIC to Sri ,'[rrnnangi^Lakshma Reddy, Advocate [t]t'U(l] 4 Two CD Co P1':^" ! .t JCK kam {I { + ,li I

¶55

)

¶56

IIIGH CCURT DATED:01/t)3/llL- l

¶57

I ! I i I I I I I I I l I I I I I It, q JUDGMENT I I i CMA.No.lil L of l2[) 2 I

¶58

l ., I il'l'!I !, I, I \ fr til I Dismissinl; e C.lv l!.. rvithout costs I I l I ) I

¶59

-4
5.r ATE Or
'.,+ e
()
9
:l
, (:l 't\ N\t,ls i!
'-) i
'.<br>I nri -|5
<br>

¶60

(i) .\

Union of India v. Rayilla Sarangapani and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Rayilla Sarangapani and 2 Others

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 Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lingala Prakasha Lingam

M/s Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lingala Prakasha Lingam

M/s Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lingala Prakasha Lingam

Chevuti Sathanna Chevutu Sathanna and another Vs Bukya Deshya and another

M.Uma, , Uma Maheswari, And Another Vs M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt., LtdAnd 3 Others

B. Subash Vs G. Raju