Allowed

M Srikanth and 2 Others v. Union of India

Telangana HC13 Sept 2023CMA/738/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court appeal set aside a Railway Claims Tribunal order dismissing a compensation claim arising from a passenger's death when slipping from a moving train. The court held such an incident qualifies as an 'untoward' rather than a criminal act or self-inflicted injury, awarding Rs. 9 lakhs plus interest based on pre-amendment rates enhanced by later amendments.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed; Compensation of Rs. 9,00,000 awarded with interest; Tribunal order set aside; Response directed to deposit amount within two months.

M Srikanth and 2 Others Vs Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 73I OF 2017

¶7

Appeal Under section 23 of Railway claims Tribunal Act, against ttre Order Dated 16.12.2O16, made in OAll(U) No. 122 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad,

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 M Srikanth, S/o late M. Kodanda Ramaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o D.No.23-511-6, Rajavari Street, Satynarayanapuram, Vijayawada Pin 520 01^'1

¶10

2 M. Madhavi, Wo A.V. Vijay Kumar, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o D.No.23-5'1 1-6, Rajavari Street, Satynarayanapuram, Vijayawada Pin 520 0'11

¶11

3 M. Kalyani, Wo G.V. R.K. Sugar, Aged about 30 years, Occ House wife Rl/o D.No.23-5'l 1-6, Rajavari Street, Satynarayanapuram, Vijayawada Pin 520 011.

¶12

...APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS

¶13

AND

¶14

Union of lndia, rep. By its The Cieneral Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. N. S. GEETHA MADHURI

¶17

Counsel for Respondent

¶18

: Ms. R. MANGULAL (SC. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

--7

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CwIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 738 of 2OLZ JUDGMENT:

¶22

This Civil Miscellaneous Application is hled by the applicants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 'ActJ aggrieved by the order dated 16. 12.2016 in OAA No. t22 of 2Ol l passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, wherein the claim petition filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.8,OO,OOO I - for the death of Kodanda Ramaiah, was dismissed.

¶23

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

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that applicant Nos. I to 3 are the children of Late Kodanda Ramaiah (hereinafter will be referred as "deceased"). On 18. l2.2OlO the deceased purchased a journey ticket bearing No. O3497303 from Vijayawada to Mangalagiri and boarded Vijaywada-Guntur passenger train bearing No. M-184 in general compartment. While travelling in the train, due to heavy rush of the passengers in the compartment, the deceased suddenly slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train at Km.No.2O/2g on platform No. I o[ Mangalagiri railway station in between the pla[form and

¶25

MGT,J cN4A 738 2cr 7

¶26

thc train. As a result,^{the deceasc-ddied on tl-re spot due to} grievous injuries.^Based on^{the complaint, RPSTadcpalli} registered a case in Crime^{lrlo. 111 of 2010. The applicants,who} are the dependents of the^{deceased, have filedclaim applicatiotr} for Rs.S,OO,OOO/ - as compensation^{in vierv of dccision of the} Apex Court in Ratht^{Menon as Uniort of Indial.}

¶27

The respondent hled counter^{denying the averments of the} application. It^{was further contendedthat the deceased was not} a bonafrle^{passenger and the death of the deceasedis not on} account of an untoward^{incident but the deceased died due to} his sole negligence by^{getting down from the movingtrain,} which is a prohibited act.^{Hence,the respondentlailway is not} liable to pay compensation^{and hnally praycdto dismiss the} application.

¶28

Before the Tribunal,^{theapplicants, inorder to} substantiate their^{claim, the applicant No' Igot examinedas} .4W. l and Exs.A. I^{to A'7 were marked' Ex'A'1is the Original} ticket, Ex.A.2 is the^{hrst informationreport, Ex'A'3 is the} inquest report,^{Ex.A.4 is the PME report, Ex'A'S is the death} certificate, Ex.A.6 is^{the death certificateand Ex'A'7 is the} family member certificate.^{On behalf of the Respondent,RWs l}

¶29

'^{2ootscc (cri)13t t}

l-+-. -

ry:7

)

MGP,J cMA 73a-2017

and 2 were examined and Ex.R. l, Divisional Railway Manager,s report, was marked.

¶35

The Tribuna.l, after considering both oral and documenhry evidence praced 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 the Act and dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶36

7 Heard both sides and perused the entire record.

¶37

The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have proved their case by examining AW I and relying on documents under Exs.A.l to 4.7, but rhe Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously dismissed the claim application based on the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent.

¶38

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

¶39

N{GI'..' cMA 738 2017

¶40

¶41

ln orcler to substantjate th(rir contentions, thc applicant No. l, sou of the deceased, got cxamined himself as AW. I arld in his evidence, he reiteratcd the averrnents of the application. He deposed that the deceased is his father and on 18.12.2010 he along with the cleceased^,rent to Vijayav,ada railwav station and purchased a^journey ticket bearing No. 03497303 for travelling from Vijayawada to l\ilangalagiri. He gave send off t.o his deccased father and left the Vij ayawaCa railway station. [n his cross cxamination, AW. I admitted tl-rat he is not an e),e w'itness to the incident ancl he also deposed that the dead bocty of the deceased was cut into two pieces. Adrnittedly, AW. I was cross examined at length but nothing adverse was elicited to disbeiieve his evidencc.

¶42

On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent Railways, Ex.R I i.e., DRM Report was marked, _^{whichclearlydiscloses} that the cleceased was havirrg Railway^journey ticket and the ir-rcident occurred at the time of boarding into the said moving train. It is lurther stated that the said train^{reached at} Vijayawada railway station at O4:00 hours and the^deceased boarded the said train. While travelling rvhen the train^reached the piatform No. I of Mangalagiri raihvay station, the deceased ac\enttf slipped and fell down on the railway track between

¶43

)

¶44

MGP,J cMA _73a_2017

¶45

platform and the train. However, there is no eye witness to the incident.

¶46

It is pertinent to noLe that Ex.A.2, First Information Report and Ex.A.3, Inquest report, would make it abundantly clear that the deceased accidently fallen down from the train and died on the spot. Further, Ex.R. 1 Report discloses that the railway protection force constable guard stated that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the railway track in between the platform No. 1 and Mangalagiri railway station and the dead body was cut into two pieces. Therefore, the contention of learned standing counsel for the respondent that there was contributory negligence on the part of t-he deceased in the incident, is unsustainable.

¶47

Now, it is to be ascertained as to whether falling down from the moving train can be considered as untoward incident. In Rinc Deoi a. tlnion of India2, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:

¶48

"In Pushpo (supra) a hawker died in the course of boarding a train. It u.tas hetd. that he Ll)as not entitLed to compensation o.s, it uas a case of^,self inJlicted injury,. The releuant obseruations are: "Such on attempt bg a hautker hns been uiewed bg the trial Court as something amounting to cnminal negligence on hts part and. also an elyort to inJlia injuies to him.self. The trial Court reasoned that i1- tn" deceased had to setl his good.s bg board_ing a train, Le shouLd haue erlsured to do so only ttthen it uas quite safe for him to get on to the train or othenuise he could. ttaue auoided

'1zor9; I^scc szz

MGP,J cMA_733 20l7

aatching tle^{troin and Luailed.} for^{onother train} }o^come'It also hiited thot^{there uas absolutetA no compulsinnor hurrg} for^{the deceasedin the present case to make an attentpt to} -somehou.t or tLLe other board the train while it wos gothering speed."

¶54

16.5 In. Shyam Naragan^{(supra),same uieututas} token tDhich is as foLlotus:^{"6(ii) I cannot agreeuith the} orgumerlts urged on^{behotJ of the appellants/opplicants in} thl facts of tle^{presentcase because thereis o difference} bettl)een an untouard^{incident and an act of criminnl} negligence. Whereas^{negligencetuitl not disentitlegrant of} compensation^{under the RaihttogsAct, lnuteuer, oncethe} n"giig"n . becomes^{a ciminal negligenceand self-inJliaed} injury then^{atmpensationcannot be granted.Th'lstb} specificatly^{prouided in the} first^{prouiso to Section124-A of} the Raiklays Act which^{prouidesthat compensation will not} be pagabte in^{cosethe death takes pLace on account of} suiiide or attempted^{suicide,sef inJlictedinjury,bona} ftde passenger's otun ciminal^{act or an act committedbg *E} d.eceased in^{the.stoteof tntoication or insanitA."}

¶55

16.6 We are unable to uphold^{the aboue uieuto-sthe} concept of 'setf^{inJTictedinjury'tuouldrequire intention to} inJtici such injury^{and not mere negligenceof angportianlar} dLgree. Doing so^{tuouldamount to tnuoking the pincipleof} negligence uhich cannot^{be done in the cose of} tiabitity "oitibutory based on^'no fault^{theory'. We mayin this connedion} refer to^judgment ol^{this Court in United India InsuranceCo'} Lid. uersus Sunil^{Kumar34layingdoun that plea of} negligence of the^{utctim cannot be alloued irt claim based on} 'no^joutt theory' under^{Section 163A of the MotorVehicles} Act, 1988. AcardtrLgty,^{u.te holdthat death or injury in the} course of boarding or^{de-boardtnga train uillbe an} 'untouard.^{incident' entittinga uictim to tlae<nmrynsation} and tuitt^not fa.ll^{underthe prouiso to Section 124Amerely on} the ptea of^{negligenceof the uictim as a contributing} factor'"

¶56

In^{view of the principle laid down inthe above said} authority,^{falling from the train while boarding the saidmoving} train will not^{fall under the exceptionsof Section124-A of the} Act and certainly^{itamounts to an 'untoward incident''A} perusal of the impugned order^{discloses that the Tribunal} observed that boarcling the moving train,^{is a punishableoffence}

.-----7

MGP,J cMA 73a 20t7

under Section L47 of Lhe Act. Though Tribunal observed the contradictory statements in the version of railway officials, the findings in Ex.R 1 were accepted. [n such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have considered the settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, the interpretation that is benelicial to the applicants has to be preferred, as the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is enacted to protect the interests of the passengers.

¶61

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 findings of the Tribunal are hereby set aside. Hence, the applicants are entitled for compensation.

¶62

Coming to the quantum of compensation, in case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment i.e., on O2.lO.2OlO, the prevailing basic figure in respect of death case was Rs.4.00 lakhs, which has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.8.OO lakhs as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex

¶63

MGP,J cMA 738 2017

¶64

¶65

Court in the case of llnion of India us.^RadhaYadanf,

¶66

wherein it was held as follows:

¶67

" 1O. The ssue^ratsed tn the^{mattetdoes not reallA} require any elaboratiort as in our^{uiew, tl-Le} iudgment^{of this} Court tn the case of Rina Deui,^2O18 ACJ^{14'11(SC), is uery} clear. What this Court hc.s laid^dolDn is that tlte^amountof compensation pagaHe on the date^{ofaccidentu-tith} reasonable rate of interest^shall first be calculated.^Ifthe amount so calculated !s^less ,han^{the anlount prescribedas} on the date of the award, the claimant^{utouLdbe entitLedto} higher of these two amounts.^Therefore, if the^liabilitghad aisen before tlle am.endment was^{brought tn,} the^basic figure wouLd be o-s per the Schedule^{qs was in eistencebefore tle} am.endment and on such^bastc figure^{reasonable rate of} interest would be calculated.^If tllere^{be angdifference} between th.e amount so calqtlated^{and the amountprescribed} in tl'Le Schedule as on the date of^the award,^{the higher of tuo} ftgures^{would be the measureof compensaton. For tnstance,} in case of a death it an accident whtch occurred^before amendment, the bastc ftgure unuld^{be Rs.4,O0,OO0/-. tf, afier} applying reqsonable rate of^{intercst,th.e} fnal figure^uereto be less tan Rs.8,00,OOO/-, tuhich^{was brought in bg wag of} amendmen| the cLanmant unuld^{be entitled} to^{Rs.8,00,0OO/-.} If, houeuer, the amount ol oigtnal^{compensationuith rateof} interest were to exceed the sum^{ofRs.8,O0,OOO/- the} ampensation would be in terms of ltgare^inexcessof Rs.8,O0,OO0/ . The idea rc to afford tlle benefrt^ofthe amendmenL to the extenl possible.^{Thus,according to us, the} ntatter is crystal clear."

¶68

17 . The applican ts are also entitled for^interest @^{7o/o per} annum on the compensation amount^{as per the decisionof the} Honourable Supreme Court in^{Kamukagl u. Uniorr oJ Inidd.} From the date of application i.e., 12.05.2011^{to the date of order} i.e., 13.09.2023, the applicants^{are entitled for interest for 12} years 04 months = 148 months.

¶69

f ai', Appeal No.37gg of 2023 (AnsinS otrt of SI-P (C) No. 17062/2022') decided on 16 05 2023

'^{(2004) 2 sccI}

MGP,J cMA 738 2017

Thus, the interest entitled by the applicants is calculated

¶75

as follows:

¶76

Rs. 4,00,0OO/ - x 7 / IOO = Rs.3,45,333/(for l2 years O4 months i.e., 148 months)

¶77

Therefore, the interest along with the compensation amount, to which the applicants are entitled prevailing at the time of the accident comes to Rs.7,45,333/ - (Rs.4,OO,0OO/ _ + Rs.3,a5,333/-).

¶78

However, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Radha Yadaa's case (supra), if, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.g,OO,0OO/ , which was brought in by way of latest amendment, the applicants would be entitled to Rs.g,oo,OOO /- rc, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of in terest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,0O,0OO/-, the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. In the instant case, the final figure comes to Rs.7,45,333/-. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.g,OO,OO0/.

¶79

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by awarding the compensation amount of Rs.g,0O,OO0/- and the order dated 16.12.2016 in OAA No. 122 of 201 I passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at

¶80

¶81

MGP,J cMA 73a 2017

¶82

Secunderabad is set aside_ The respondent Railways is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of two morrths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the applicants are entitied to withdraw the compensation amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs

¶83

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶84

closed.

¶85

Sd/- B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT EGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO OFFICER