Allowed

K.Radhika v. the South Central Railway

Telangana HC8 Nov 2023CMA/593/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation claim. It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that slipping and falling from a moving train constitutes an untoward incident rather than self-inflicted injury, entitling the family to Rs. 8 lakh.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- awarded; order of RTC set aside; respondent directed to deposit amount within two months.

K.Radhika Vs the South Central Railway — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[^32s3 I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO:^{5s3 0F 2012}

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims^{Tribunal Act, against the} Judgment and decree dated 18.04.2012^{made in OAA.No.211 of 2O05on the file of} the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad^{Bench, Secunderabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.Radhika, D/o.late K.Ramachandra Reddy,^{Age:20 years,Occ Student} cUo.311452, Holmespete, Proddatur, Cuddapah District.

¶10

...APpellanUAPPlicant

¶11

ANO

¶12

The South Central Railway, rep.^by General^{Manager, South central Railway} O/o.Secunderabad.

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri POTTIGARI^{SRIDHAR REDDY}

¶15

Counsel forthe Respondent : Ms.^{K. MANI DEEPIKA,} SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

¶16

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CrvIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 593 of2OI-2 JUDGMENT:

¶19

This Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed by the applicant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for breviqr hereinafter referred to as the Act') aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2012 in OAA No. 211 of 2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, wherein the ciaim petition frled by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,00O I - for the death of K.Ramachandra Reddy, 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 is the daughter of Late K. Ramachandra Reddy (hereinafter will be referred as "deceased"l. On 13.02.2002 the deceased, alongwith his friend namely G.S.Chandra Obula Reddy purchased a journey ticket bearing Nos. 11932 and 11935 from Mantralayam to Cuddapah and on 13/14.O2.2OO2, during the intervening night hours, the deceased boarded Hyderabad-Tirupati Ravalaseema Express train bearing No.7429 in II class general compartment. While travelling in the train, due to hea,,y rush of tk\passengers in the compartment, the deceased suddenly

MGP,J cMA 593 2012

slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train between Tadipathri and Kondapuram railway stations. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the grievous injuries on the spot. The applicant, who is the dependent of the deceased, has Iiled claim application for Rs.8,00,O0O/- as compensation in view of decision of the Apex Court in Ra,thi Menon as Uniorr o.f Indlal.

¶26

The respondent hled counter denying the averments of the application. It was further contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the 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 moving train, which is a prohibited act. Hence, the respondent railway is not liable to pay compensation and finally prayed to dismiss the application.

¶27

Before the Tribunal, the applicant, in order to substantiate her claim, AWs. 1 and 2^were examined^and Exs.A. 1 to A.6 were marked. Ex.A. 1 is the original tickets, Ex.A.2 is the memo hled by SP, Ex.A.3 is the FMC, Ex.A.4^{is the} letter to SP, trx.A.S is the acknowledgment and Ex.A.6 is^the hnal report. On behalf of the Respondent, RW. 1^{was examined,} however, no document was marked.

¶28

'^{zoot scc (c.Dt3 t t}

¶29

¶30

MGP,J CMA 593 20I2

¶31

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary^{evidenceplaced on record,observed that any} criminal act^{on the part of the passengersexonerates the} railway administration^{from payment of compensation under} the proviso^{Section 124-A of the Act and dismissedthe claim} application.^{Aggrievedby the said order, the} applicant^has preferred the^{presentCivilMiscellaneousAppeal.}

¶32

Heard both sides and perused the entire record

¶33

The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that^the applicant^{has proved} her case^by examining AW.^{1 and relying} on^documents under Exs.A. 1 to A.6, but the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously dismissed the claim application based on the evidence adduced on^behalf of the respondent.

¶34

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal after^considering all the aspects, has rightly dismissed the application and the same needs no interference by this Court.

¶35

in order to substantiate their contentions, mother-in-law of the deceased, got examined as AW. 1 and in her evidence, she reiterated the averments of the application. In her chief examination, she deposed that the deceased is her son-in-law

¶36

MGP,J cMA 593 2012

¶37

¶38

and on 13114.O2.2OO2, as per the eye witness and co-passenger of the deceased, namely G.S.Chandra obul reddy, while tr-avelling in Hyderabad-Tirupati Rayalaseema Express Train bearing No. 7429, the deceased'^/ent to wash his hands at the basin near the door, due to hit by the door, the deceased accidently slipped and fell down from the running^train. Immediately, G.S.Chandra Obul Reddy, tried to^{stop the train} by puliing the chain but the train stopped at^{Nederpetvillage} and then he informed about the incident to the^villagersof Nederpet village. She further deposed that one^Pullanna, agricultural labour, also witnessed^{the deceased falling from the} train and saw the dead body of the deceased^{lying in the track.} She also deposed that the^{deadbody of the deceasedwas} brought to Nedarpet village by^{G.S.ChandraObul Reddy and} Pu1lanna. AW. 2, G.S.Chandra Obul^{Reddy,who is happenedto} be distant relative and co-passenger^{of the deceased,in his} cross examination deposed^that on^{13.O2.2OO2,at about 1 1:25} p.m., he along with the deceased^{purchasedjourneytickets} bearing Nos. 1i932 and^{11935 to travel from Mantralayamroad} to Cuddapah and boarded^{Hyderabad-TirupatiRayalaseema} Express train bearing^{No. 7429 in II class general compartment.} He further deposed that on^{74.O2.2OO2,at about 03:30a. m. ,} while travelling in^the train,^{they went to wash basin and the}

MGP,J cMA 593 2012

deceased, who was standing beside him near the door, accidently slipped and fell down from the running train. Though AWs. 1 and 2 were cross-examined at iength nothing adverse was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.

¶43

1 1 . On behalf of the respondent, RW. 1 was examined. RW. 1, Senior Gang man, Gang No. 7 under SSE/Kondapuram, in his chief examination, deposed that on 131 I4.O2.2OO2, during his working hours i.e., from 11:00 p.m. on 13.02.2002 to O7:OO a.m. on 14.O2.2OO2 between Kms.338/8 346 /6-7 posts between Kondapuram to Regadapalli, he has not noticed any dead body or given any untoward message to any station master or any raiiway police. In his cross examination, RW. 1 deposed that on 14.O2.2OO2, he performed his duty between Kondapuram and Regadipalli railway stations but not upto Tadipatri" He further deposed that the Tadipatri comes after Ragadipalli and he was no[ aware if any incident occurred at Tadipatri as he done his dury in reverse direction after reaching Regadipalii at O1:30 a.m., on the intervening night on 13/14.O2.2OO2.

¶44

It is pertinent to state that except stating so, the railways have not adduced any documentary evidence or fi1ed DRM report to prove that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident and that the deceased was not having ajourney ticket.

MGP,J cMA 593 2012

It is pertinent to note that Ex.A. 1 is the original journey Lickets purchased by the deceased to travel form Mantralayam road to Cuddapa in Hyderabad-Tirupati Rayalaseema Express train bearing No. 7 429 .

¶49

In Rina Devi v. Union of India2, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:

¶50

"We tlrus hold tlnt mere presence of a bodg on the Railway premises u.titl not be conclusiue to hold that injured or deceased u.tas a bona fi.de passenger for uhich claim for compensation could be maintained- Hou.teuer, mere absence of ticket uith such injured or decea.sed tuill not negatiue the claim that he was a bona ftde passenger. Initial burden u.till be on the claimant ulhich can be discharged bg filing an afftdauit of the releuant focts and burden uill then shifi on tLe Raitutays and the issue can be decided on the facts shotun or the attending circumstances. This tuilt haue to be dealt utith from case to cose on the basis of facts found.^The legal position in f/zis regard n-tilt stand explained accordinglg. "

¶51

In the instant casc, the applicant has filed affidavits of AW. 1 along with the documentary evidence in the form^of Exs.A.1 to ,{.6 and thus, they have discharged their^initial burden. Accordingly, the burden shifts on to the^respondent- railways to establish that the deceased^was not a^bona fide passenger. In discharge of such burden, the respondent^got examined RW. 1, vvho deposed that he has not noticed any dead body or given any untoward message to any station master or any railway police. However, no DRM report is hled to prove the

'1zor9;^{: sccszz}

MGP,J cMA 593 2012

same. A perusal of evidence of AWs. i and 2 and Exs.A. 1, original^journey tickets, makes it abundantly clear that there is no foul play is suspected in the cause of death of the deceased and it is a clear case of "Accidental Death due to fe1l down from running train". Thus, following the above decision of the Apex Court, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-railways that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, is unsustainable, when the deceased is in possession ofJourney tickets under trx.A.1.

¶56

Now, it is to be ascertained as to whether falling down from the moving train can be considered as untoward incident. In Rtna Devt (Supra), the Honourable Supreme Court held as

¶57

follows:

¶58

"ln Pushpa (supra) a hau.tker died tn the course of boarding a train. It u.tas held that he tuas not entitled to compensation os tt uos a case of 'self inJlicted injury'. The releuant obseruations are: "Such on attempt by a hawker ha.s been uiewed bg the tial Court as something amounting to ciminal negligence on his part and also an effort to inflict injuries to himself . The tial Court reasoned that tf the deceased had to sell his goods bg boarding o train, he should haue ensured to do so only u.then it uas quite safe for him to get on to the troin or othenuise he could haue auoided catching the train ond watted for another train to come. It also hinted that there tuas absolutelg no compulsion or hurry for^{the deceasedin the presentcaseto} make an attempt to somehotu or the other boord the train while it uos gatheing speed."

¶59

16.5 In Shyam Narayan (supra), same uieut was taken uhich is a.s follouLs: " 6(ii) I cannot agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellants/ applicants in the facts of the present case because there is a difJerence bedtteen an untou-tard incident and on act of ciminal

MCP,J cMA 593 2012

negligence. Whereas negligence utill not disentitle grant of compensation under the Railu-tags Act, ltouLeuer, once the negligence becomes o ciminal negligence and self-inJlicted injury then compensation connot be granted. ?his is specificallg prouided in the first prouiso to Section 124-A of the Roitwags Act u.thich prouides that compensation uill^not be pagable in ca.se the death takes^place on account^of suicide or attempted suicide, self inJlicted injury, bona fide passenger's oun ciminal act or^(tn oct committed bg the deceased in tlre state of intoxication or insanity. "

¶64

16.6 We are unable to uphold the aboue uieu^{as the} concept of 'self inJlicted injury' uLould require intention^to inJlict such injury ond not mere negligence of ony^particutar degree. Doing so u.tould amount to inuoking the^{pinciple of} contibutory negligence uhich connot be done^{in the case of} tiabilitA based on 'no fault theory'.^We may in^{this connection} refer to judgment of this Cottrl in United India Insurance^Co. Ltd. uersus Sunil Kumar34 laging doun that^{plea of} negltgence of the uictim cannot be alLou.ted in claim^basedon 'no fautt theory' under Section 163A of^{tlle Motor Vehicles} Act, 1988. Accordinglg, ute hotd tltat death or^{injuryin the} course of boarding or de-boarding o train^Luill be^an 'untoutard incident' entitting a uictim to^{the compensdtion} ond uilt not fall under^{the prouiso to Section724A merelg on} tlrc plea of negligence of the uictim as a^contributing foctor."

¶65

In view of the^principle laid down^{inthe abovesaid} authority, falling from the train^{while boardingthe said moving} train will not fall under Lhe exceptions^{of Section 124-A of t}l,e} Act and certainly it amounts to an^{'untowardincident'. A} perusal of the impugned order discloses that the^Tribunal observed that boarding the moving train,^{is a punishableoffence} under Section 147 of the Act. Though Tribunal^{observed the} contradictory statements in the version^{of railway officials, the} hndings in evidence of RW. 1 were accepted.^Insuch circumstances, the Tribunal ought to l-rave^{consideredthe} settled principle of law that if two interpretations^{are possible,}

MGP,J cMA 593 2012

-7

the interpretation that is benehcial to the applicants has to be preferred, as the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is enacted to protect the interests of the passengers.

¶71

1 \

¶72

Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Railway Claims Tribunal without considering all these aspects came to the wrong conclusion by dismissing the claim application of the applicants and hence, the said hndings of the Tribunal are hereby set aside. Hence, the applicants are entitled for compensation.

¶73

Coming to the quantum of compensation, the applicant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,O0,00O/-.

¶74

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by awarding the compensation amount of Rs.8,00,0OO/- and the order dated la.O4.2ol2 in OAA No. 211 of 2005 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 securit5r. If the said amount is not deposited within the

¶75

¶76

MGP,J cMA_593_20r2

¶77

stipulated time, the respondent is liable to pay minimum interest at the rate of 7o/o per annum from the date of default to the date ofdeposit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶78

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶79

closed.

¶80

Sd/. B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// fir'

¶81

SECTION OFFICER

¶82

To,

¶83

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. (wilh records, if any)

¶84

One CC to Sri. POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. ONE CC tO MS. K. MANI DEEPIKA, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

ASR2/'NIJB

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811112023

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.593 of 2012

-4=-.::
r '1. 1
<br>(
i._
e
C)
1 1s liAR 2024
1 ,,,
1t^(i', .-'/
J.

¶92

ALLOWING CMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶93

¶94

i*-
<br>

K.Radhika v. the South Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Radhika v. the South Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Anubham Pushpavathi and 5 Ors.

The Manager, National Insurancecompany Limtied, Allahabad. Vs Hridaylal Misra and Another

K Pentaiah (Died) Vs the Joint Collector

M/S. National Insurance Company Vs Md. Ghouse Moinoddin and Another

M/S.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.a.Sowndarya and 3 Ors.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Ramana and Another