Allowed

Madi Shetti Laxmi and 2 others v. The Union of India

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023CMA/874/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the dismissal of a death compensation claim. It held that the absence of a ticket did not prove the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal was directed to award Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest, plus a right to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed. The Railway Claims Tribunal order set aside. Compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- awarded with interest. Court directed the Railways to deposit the amount within two months.

Madi Shetti Laxmi and 2 others Vs The Union of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 874 OF 2019

¶7

Appeal Under section 23 of Railway claims Tribunal Act, against the Judgment Dated 18-07-2019 made in O.A.ll.(U).No.27212016 on the file of the Court of the Tribunal of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

Madi Shetti Laxmi, Wo late M. Shankar, Aged about 51 years, occ, House wife, Rio H.No.9-174, l.B. Tandur village and Mandal, District Mancherial, Telangana State

¶10

Madi Shefti Vijay, S/o late M. Shankar, Aged about 31 years, occ. Lorry cleaner, R/o H.No.9-174, l.B. Tandur village and Mandal, District Mancherial, Telangana State

¶11

3 Madi Shetti Ajay, S/o late M. Shankar, Aged about 27 years, occ. lorry transport Office as Supervisor, l8 Tandur, R/o H.No 9-174, l.B. Tandur village and Mandal, District Mancherial, Telangana State.

¶12

...APPELLANT/APPLICANT

¶13

AND

¶14

The Union of India, rep by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, at Secunderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. S. CHANDRASEKHAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent

¶18

: Mrs. G. SAMPADA

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

THE HONOUR/TBLE SMT. JUSI'ICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 874 of2Ol9

¶21

JUDGMI'NT:

¶22

This Civil Mis;cellaneous Application is hlcd by the appticants under Sectrorl 23 of the Railway Claims Tnbunal Act, 1978 (for brevity hercinafter referred to as thc 'Act') aggrieved by thc order dal.ed I8.O7.2O19 in OA II (U) No. 272 of 20)6 passed ir-v the: liaihvay Claims 'l'ribunal, Secunderabad Bcnch, at Sccunderabad, wherein the claim pctition hled by the applicants ctairning compensation of Rs.4,O0,OOO/- tor the death of Madi Slietty Sharrkar,''lras dismissed.

¶23

For the sal<e of converrience, hereinzrfter, lhc parties u'iil bc refcrlcd as per thc-ir array before the "'lribr-rrrerl"

¶24

:',. 'l-hc bricl' tact.s ol'the carse are that ap;rlit:anl IrJo. I is thc viifr: and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of t,ate Madi Shctty Shankar (hereinafter will be referred as "deccascd"). On l5.lO.2Ol6, the applicant No. 3 purchased a journcy ticket lrom Rachani Road RS r,r Peddapalli and handed ovcr thc sarne to tllc dcceascd who boarded thc Bhagranagar Oxprcss trarrr bearing No- 17234 despite hcavy rr,tsh. Orr 16.1O.201€), the applicants cilme to knor',, ;rboirt thc clci-rrlr ol tlre dcccascd I hrough neu,s. -'Fhe ;,,urncy tickct is said to fiavc bcen Iost cluring I hc' accidcnt-. 1'he applic:rnts, rvho ar.re thc cicpendcnts of Lhr: <lcccasr':d, Irrrvc

¶25

¶26

N,I(} P,J cMA tt74 20 t 9

¶27

filed claim application for Rs.8,0O,0O0/ - as compensation in view of decision of the Apex Court in Rath.i Menon us tlnion Of Indial.

¶28

The respondent filed counter denying the averments of the application. It u,as 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, which is a prohibited act. Hence, thc respondent railway is not liablc to pay compensation and finally prayed to dismiss the application.

¶29

Bcforc the^'lribunal, the applicants, in order to substantiatc l-heir claim, the applicant No. 3 got examined as AW. i ancl got marked trxs.A.I to A.8. On behalf of the Respondent, RWs. l and 2 were examineC and got marked Exs.R. 1 to R.2 are marked.

¶30

Thc 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 lrom payment of compensation under the proviso Section 124 A ol the Act and dismissed the claim

¶31

'^{loot scc (cri,t3 II}

¶32

MGP,J CMA 874 2OI9

¶33

¶34

application. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present Civil Misceilaneous Appeal.

¶35

7" Heard both sides and perused the entire record.

¶36

The main contention of the learned counsei for the applicants is that the applicants have proved their case by examining AW. I and relying on documents under Exs.A.1 to A.8, but the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously dismissed the claim^.application based on the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent.

¶37

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent contended that the deceased is not a bona Jide passenger and that he did not die in an untoward incident. It is further contended that the Tribunal after considering all the aspects, has rightly dismissed the application and the same needs no interference by this Court.

¶38

[n crder to substantiate their contentions, the applicant No. 3, son of the deceased, got examined himself as AW. i and in his evidence, he reiterated the averments of the application. He deposed that the deceased is his mother and on the date of incident, his wife purchased common journey ticket to trave I in Bhag,anagar Express train bearing No.17234 from Sirpur Kagaznagar to Secunderabad. He lurther deposed that he came

¶39

t{GP..l c.MA 874_2019

¶40

¶41

to know about the death of lhe deceased on 16.10.2O t6 through ne'nvs. Admittcdly, AW. I was cross examineci at length but nothing adverse was elicited to disbelieve his evidence.

¶42

On the other hand, on behalfofthe rcspondenl Railu'ays, Ex.R.2 i.e., DRIvI Report was marked, u,hich discloscs that thc deceased was not having any Railway^j<.rurney ticket. It is further stated that there was no eye witness l-o the accident. It is also stated that in the presencc of the appticant No. 3, son of l.he deceased, the deceased boardecl thc said train on 15. 1O.2O 16. Further, as per Guard's statement there were no jerks and jolts.

¶43

[l- is pertinent to note that F]x.A. I , attcstcd copy of FIR, clearly discloscs that the kcyman noticed one unknown male dead body found lying at Km.No. 262/2O-2O between Manchiryal-Peddampet railway stations. Furthermore, Ex.A.2, attested copy of message, Ex.A.3, attested copy of inquest report; Ex.A.4, attested copy of PME report; Ex.A.S, originai death certificate and Ex.A.6, attested copy of hr-ral report, would make it abundantly clear that the deceased dicd due to head injury and the deceased was having no poisonous substance in viscera. Exs.R.1 and R.2 discloscs that there was no eye-witness to the accident. Therefore, the contention of learned standing counsel for the respondent that there was contributory

¶44

MGP,J cMA 874 2019

¶45

¶46

negligence on the part of the deceased in the incident, unsustainable

¶47

¶48

i3. The main contention of learned Standing Counsel for the respondent is that since no ticket was available with the deceased at the time of the accident, the deceased was not a bona-ftde purchaser as on the date of the accident and thereby, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. However, the railway authorities did not even venture to search the body of the deceased for the presence ofjourney ticket.

¶49

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

¶50

"We thus hold that mere presence of a bodg ott the RaiLutag premises will not be conclusiue to hold that injured or deceased u)as a bona ftde passenger for u-thich claim for compensation could be maintained. Howeuer, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased u.till not negatiue tLe claim that he u.tas a bona fide^{passenqer. Initial burden uill be on} tte^claimant which can be discharged bg filing an affrdauit of the releuant facts and burden will then shifi on the Railwags and the issue ccn be decided on tLe facts shown or the attending circtLmstances. This utill haue to be dealt toith from cose to case on tlrc basis of facts found.^{The legal positionin this regard uillstand} explained accord tglg. "

¶51

In the case on hand, the applicants have liled affidavit of AW. 1 along with the documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A. 1 to A.8 and thus, they have discharged their initial

¶52

(2019) 3 SCC 572

¶53

MGP.J c N,tA 874 .20 19

¶54

¶55

burden. Accordingly, the burden shifts on to the respondent to establish that the deceased^q/as not a bonafde passerrger. In discharge of such burden, the respondent got ma.rked Ex.R. 1 i.e., DRM report, which discloses that the dead borly found by keyrnan and he has deposed about the incident and as per him, tlre dead body of deceersed lying at I(m.No. 26212O-'2O betrveen Manchiryal-Peddampet raihvay sLations and thc deceased did not fourrd any railu,ay journcl, tir:kct. Merr:ly bccause tite deceased was not p<.rsscssing^journcy ticket, it cannot be said that the deceascd did not die ir-r an untoward incidcnt and that lre is not a bono fide passenger. Thus, the conte irlion of the leamed Standing Counsel for the respondent that r]o un[oward incident has occurred, cannot sustaill.

¶56

Keeping in view all facts and circumstantial evidence available on record and tl're observations made bv the Apex Court in Rlna Devi (supra), this Court is of the considered view that though mere absencc of ticket with the dcceased will not negate the claim that he was a bona /rde passenget, however, initial burden will be on the applicants, which was duly discharged by them by adducing the evidence of AW. I and Exs.A.1 to A.8.

¶57

Therefore, this Court is of the considcred opinion that the Railvray Claims 'lribunal without considering all these. aspects

¶58

MCP,J cMA a74 2019

¶59

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.

¶60

Coming to the quantum of compensation, in case of death in an accident which occurred be fore amendment i.e., on O2.lO.2OlO, the prevailing basic figure in respect of death case was Rs.4.OO lakhs, which has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.8.O0 lakhs as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward lncidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2O 16. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of Indla us. Ra.dha Yadatf , wherein it rvas held as follows:

¶61

"1O. The issue roised ttl the motter does not reallg require ang eloborotton as in our uieut, the judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Deui, 2018 ACJ 1441 (SC), is uery clear. What this Court has taid down ts thqt the amount of compensation poyable on the date of accident uith reasonable rate of iTterest shall Jirst be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less tfton the amount prescibed as on the date of the award, tlte claimant would be entitled to higher of these tuo crrrou,rts. Therefore, if the liabilitg had aisen before the omendnlett was brought in, the basic figure wou[d be as per the Schedule cs urcrs in eistetce before the atLendment^qrLd ort suctr basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference betueen the amowlt so caLcuLated @td the omount prescibed in tlte Schedule as on tlTe dale of the au,ard, the ltigher oJ two firyres^{wouldbe the meesure of conlpensation. For instctnce,} in case of a death itl atl accident which occurred beJore omendmenL tlrc basic frgure would be Rs.4,00,000/ -. If, afer applging reasonqble rote of ttterest, tlLe final fi.gure were to be less than Rs-B,OO,OOO/ , ultich was brought tn bg weg of amendment, the claimant utould be etltitled to R9.8,OO,OOo/-.

_^{'(2OO4) 2 SCC l}

M(;P,J CMA 874 2OI9

If, houeuer, the anlount of oiginal^{(:ompensatton} with rate of interest were to exceed the surn of Rs.8,OO,O00/ the conqensation u.touid be in tenns of frgure in excess of RS.8,0O,OOO/-. The idea is to afford the- benefit of tlte amendment, to th.e erte possible. ?}rus, accordtng to us, tlle ntetter is crystal clear."

¶66

The applicants are also entitled for interest @ 7o/o per annum on the compensation amount as p(jr the dccision of the l{onourable Supreme Court in K.annukagi u. Uniort of Inid.at. From thc datc of application i.e., 28.I',.2O16 to th() date of ordcr i.e., 12.09.2O23, the applicants are entitlcd for irrtcrcst for 06 ycars⁽⁾⁹ rnonths = 81 months.

¶67

Thus, the interest entitled bj, the applicants is calculatcd as follows:

¶68

Rs. 4,00,0O0/- x 7/ i00^." tts. I,89,00O/-

¶69

(for 06 ycars 09 months i.e., 8l rnonths)

¶70

21 . Therefore, the interesl along u,ith the compcnsation amoLrnt, to which the appli<:ants are entitlecl prcvailing at the time of the accident comes to Rs.5,89,00O/ - (Rs.a,O0,OOO/⁺ Rs. 1,89,0O0/ -).

¶71

Ho',r,ever, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Radha Yadant's case (supra), if, after applying reasonablc rate of ittteresl, the final figure were to be less tharr Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of latest amendntent, the

¶72

aCivil Appeal No.3799 of2023 (Arising our ofSl,1,(Cl No. 17062/2022) dccr(ted or 1605 2023

¶73

MGP,J cMA 874 2019

¶74

¶75

applicants would be entitled ro Rs.8,O0,00o/-. lf , however, the amount of original compensation r.l'ith rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,OO,O0O/-, the compensation would be in terms of ligure in e,xcess of Rs.8,O0,000/ -. In the instant case, the final figure comes to Rs.5,89,0OO/-. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,OO,000/-.

¶76

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by awarding the compensation amounl ol Rs.8,O0,OO0/- and the order dated 18.07.2019 in OA II (Ul No. 272 of 2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribrrnal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad is set aside. The respondent Railways is directed to deposit the cornpensation amount belbre the Tribunal u,ithin a period of two months ttom lhe date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the applicants are entitled to u'ithdraw the compensatioll amount without furnishing any security. There sha[[ be no order as to costs.

¶77

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶78

closed.

¶79

To,

¶80

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JorNr //TRUE COPYII $Frs:rRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶81

1 IE..$Iy?{9t?,,f" Tribunat, Secunderabad (Bench), uecunderabad (With records if any)

¶82