Dismissed

Bathini Pochaiah v. The Union of India

Telangana HC21 Nov 2023CMA/918/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's rejection of a compensation claim following the death of a deceased who fell while boarding a moving MMTS train. The Court held that the appellants failed to prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket, distinguishing the case from Apex Court precedents where a ticket was present, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 918 of 2019 is dismissed without costs.

Bathini Pochaiah Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s31

¶2

TTIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

' ::.t.i - :,

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶7

c VIL MIS LLANEOUS NO: 80F 19

¶8

Appeal filed under Section ?1 ol !h. Railway Ctaims Tribunal Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 13.08.2019 passed in o.A.il.(u).No.roeii zori oi the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Secunderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bathini Pochaiah, S/o. B. Rajaiah, Aged about 52 years, occ- Coolie. r/o H.No. 1-153, Kapparaopera, [,t'anoai veiagaturu, bistri6iGgfitvit. -*"" ""

¶11

2' Bathini Amrutha, w/o-Bathini pochaiah, Aged about 44 years, occ- House hotd. r/o H.No. 1-153, Kapparaopeta, ManOitVetiiaturu, O,iitriCdligit,ir."-'" "i.r^i.i

¶12

AND

¶13

...APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS

¶14

The Union of lndia. reo. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, at Secunderibad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/RESPONT}ENT

¶16

Counsel for Appeflants : Sri S. CHANORASEKHAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent : Smt. K. MANI DEEPIKA

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT.JUSTICEM.G.PRIYADARSINI} CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{No.918 0F 2()19}

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

Aggrieved by the dismissal^{Order passed by the Railway} Claims Tribuinal, Secunderabad^{Bench(for brevity, 'the TribunalJ,} in OA II^(U) No.1O8 of^{2017, dated13.08.2019,the applicantshave} preferred the present apPeal.

¶25

Iror the sake of convenience,^{hereinafter,the parties will be} referred as^per their array^{before the Tribunal}

¶26

The brief facts of the case are^{that, the applicants who are the} parents of the deceased-Bathini Shekar^{(hcreinafterwill be referred} as 'deceased') hled an application^{under Section16 of the Railway} Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with^{Section 124'A ol the Railway} Act 1989 claiming compensation of^Rs.8 lakhs^{on accountof the} death of the deceased. According to the^{applicants, the deceased} was working in a private company at Maheshwaram^{Mandal, Ranga} Reddy District and was residing along^{with his four friends at} Vidyanagar colony, Hyderabad. On^{3.12.2O16 he arrived at} Begumpet and went to Vidyanagar railway station^{and having} purchased a valid^journey ticket for traveling from Vidyanagar^to Begumpet, boarded MMTS train No.47157. Due to heavy rushⁱⁿ the compartment, he accidentally lell down at Vidyanagar railway

¶27

2 MGP,J Cma 918 2019

¶28

station. One Sri Krishna who came to Vidyanagar railway station, after noticing the said incident has informed lO8 ambulance and went along with the injured to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Based on the report, a case in Crime No.294 /2076 was registered by the Railway Police, Kacheguda. Hence the claim.

¶29

The respondent-Railways filed rvritten statement denying the averments of the application and contended that the accident had occurred due to carelessness of the deceased and that the deceased was not having valid journey ticket and as per the inquest report, ticket was not found. Thcrefore, the deceased was not a bona ftd-e passenge r and the injuries sustained by him are self inflicted injuries and duc to his own criminal act.^'fherefore, the applicants are not entitled for compensation. Divisional Railway Manager's report l-rled along with the written statement. Hence, prayed to dismiss tl, e application.

¶30

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶31

Wlether the deccased toas a bona frde^pa,ssenger of the^{tratn in} question and died as o result of an untouord incident?

¶32

Whether the applicants are depend.ents of the deceased?

¶33

Wlether the appliconts ore entitled to the^{corry)ensationas} claimed?

¶34

To uhnt relieJ?

\ \

MGP,J Cma 918 2019

Before the Tribunal, on^{behalf of the applicants,applicant} No. I was examined as^{A.W.1 and got markedExs.A. Ito A'7' On} behalf of respondent-railways,^{RW. 1 was examinedand Exs.R1 and} R2 were marked.

¶40

The Tribunal after considering the^{evidenceon record,both} oral and documentar5r, has dismissed^{the application. Aggrieved by} the same, the appellants/ applicants^{have filed the presentappeal.}

¶41

Heard Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned^{counsel forthe} appellants and Smt. K.Mani^{Deepika, learnedStanding Counsel for} the Railways and perused the record.

¶42

The main contention of the learned counsel^{for the applicants} is that though the applicants^proved their^{case by examiningAW.1} and retying on the documents under Exs.A.¹ to^{A7, the tribunal} without considering the same, has erroneously^{dismissed the} application on the^ground that the deceased^{was not a bona} fide passenger. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by awarding the^just and reasonable compensation.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent^Railways submitted that the Tribunal, after considering all^{the aspects,has} rightly dismissed the application. Hence, interference^of this^Court ls not necessary.

¶44

¶45

NA}P,J Cna 918 2019

¶46

Now the point for consideration is:

¶47

Whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner is sustainable under law?

¶48

FOINT:

¶49

This Court has perused the entire evidence and the documents liled by both the parties. The father of l-he deceased was examined as AW.1 and has reiterated the contents of the application and stated that on the day of incident, the deceased has purchased journey ticket, boarcled MMTS train, but due to heavy rush in the compartment he has accidentally fell down at Vidya Nagar railway station. Admittedly, he is not an cyewitness to the incident. However, a perusal of Ex.Al First lnformation Report discloses that based on the complaint given by Sri Bathini Sudhaker, a case^was registered. Ex.A2 inquest report reveals that all the^panchas have opined the reason of the death of the deceased as, on 3.12.2016 morning at about I 1- 1O hours the deceased intend to^{go to} Begumpet from Vidyanagar and while boarding^{moving MMTStrain} No.47157 has accidentally fallen down^{from the train and received} grievous injuries to head, legs and back bone and he^{was admitted} in Gandhi Hospital, through 108 ambulance and^{whileundergoing} treatment, he died on the same day at 4.43 P.M. Ex.A3^postmortem exlmination report reveals that the^{deceaseddied due to multiple} ,

)

MGP,J ('nru 918 2019

// /

injuries. Ex.AS charge sheet finerl report discloses that the investigation reveals that on 3.12.2016 at 11- 15 hours while the deceased was boarding into moving MMTS train at Vidya Nagar railway station in order to go to Rcgumpet, he has accidentally slipped and fell down on the plal. lorm and received injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Gandbi Hospital, Secunderabad through 108 ambulance and while undergoing treatment he died on the same day. Nobody suspected any foul ptay in the death of the deceased and it is a clear case of accid<:ntal death.

¶56

It is pertinent to state that rherc is no dispute that the accident occurred while the deceasecl wars trying to board moving MMTS train and has accidentally slipped and fcll down between the platform and the train and sustaincd scvcre injurics and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital in 108 arnbulance and hc succumbed to the injuries. First of all this Court has to see whcther the initial burden has proved by the applicants or not. Though there is no dispute regarding the manner of accidcnt, 1.he re arc no eyewitnesses to show that the deceased has purchased journey ticket and as per the inquest report and F.l.R., no journey ticket was found. Hence he is not a bona ftde passenger.

¶57

The statement of one S.Surcstr Kumar S/o Maisaiah discloses that on 3.12.2OL6 after breakfast, rhc dcccased rolcl him that he has

AKJP,J Cma 918 2019

(

to go to IQBL Bank, Begumpct for withdrawing money and in hurry left room at about 10-45 hours. After 20 minutes he ggt some information from the mobile ol Lhc dcceased that the deceased fell down from running train at Vidyanagar railway station and^got injured and was shifted to^()andhi Hospital in 108 ambulance. Immediately he rusht:d to Garrdhi Hospital, Secunderabad and contacted at emergency and attended the deceased and^while undergoing treatmenL, hc diccl. He informed the^{same to his} relatives through phonc. AfLcr some time^{GRP/KCHattended} Gandhi Hospital, checkcci ttic body and no railway^{ticketwas found} with Bathini Shekhar <:xcr:pL t.lt<; pass book of bank and^ATM'

¶62

The learncd counsci fbr thc applicants^argued that^{when the} deceased has fallen dorvn i'rotn the moving train^{between platform} and the train, hc has sustained multiple^{fractureinjuries at that} time, the probability of missing of^jonrney ticket^{cannot be ruled} out. However, it is also^pertirrent to state^{that when the ATM card} and passbook are available in^{possessionof the deceased,the} question of missing of the^joumey ticket does not arise'^Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses for^{purchasingjourney ticket by the} deceased and no one has accornpanicd him^{to the railway station.} AW. I in his cross-examination^{stated that he does not know who} has shifted him to the hospital through^{1O8ambulance and he was} present during the inquest. Ilut surprisingly his name is^not

MGP,J ('ma 918 2019

ii ,/i

reflecting in the description of panchas, witnesscs and^blood relatives. Under these circumstanc(:s, thc evidence o[^{AW.1 cannot} be relied upon.

¶68

On the other hand, RW. I, u'hc u'ltncssed thc incidcnt,^has categorically stated that he witncssed the incident while the deceased tried to catch the moving MMTS train, slipped, and fell down. l.ater he assisted in shifting thc injured by lOU ambulance to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. As per the evidencc of^RW.l, immediately after the incident, he callcd [08 ambulancc and shifted the injured to Gandhi hospital. According to AW.^I , he came to know that one Krishna noticed the incidr:nl, called 108 ambulance and went along with the injured to the^()andhi Hospital and^got admitted him. Immediately his room mates arrived to Gandhi Hospital and informed about thc incidcrrt. There arc number of discrepancies in the evidence of AW. 1.

¶69

Now coming to the Divisional llaiiway m€rnager's report, after examining the loco pilot of the train, guard of the train, duty home guard, on duty booking clerk of Vidya Nagar railway sl.ation, Sri S.Suresh Kumar, friend and room malre o[ the deceascd, it came to the conclusion that as per the inqucst tcport and duty l-{ome Guard evidence, when the deceased tried to board the running train, he

WP,J Cma 918 20t9

slipped and died. Duty ilomc (]uard also stated the same. Loco pilot has stated that, nojolrs/icrks experienced during the journey.

¶74

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the applicants relied on a decision of th<: Apex Court in tlnion of Ind.la us. Prabhakaran Vijaga Kumar and. otherst, wherein it was held as follows:

¶75

"[t is well kno,,vn that irr our country there are crores of people who travel by r-ail,,vai, trains since every6ody cannot alford travcling bv air or. irr a pflvate car. By giving a restrictivc and narrow meaning to thc c1pr.g55i6n we will be depriving a Iarge nunrber of victinrs ol.t middre crass p"op.r" r iiu,,,"lllffl""j"ffi:.:'';ff:j ;: Railways r\cr. Flencc. iir our 1rplnl6p. the expression ,accidental falling ol a passcnger fionr a rr.ain carrying passengers, includes accidents w.hcn a bona fidc ltasscngcr i.e. a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is rrying to enter into a railway train and Ialls dorvn during, tlte process. ln other words, a purposive, and not literal. interpretation should bc given to the expression.,,

¶76

In the above case, the passenger was in possession of a valid journey ticket and is a bona ficle passenger and has accidentally fallen down from the running train. In the present case on hand, the deceased was not in posscssion of the journey ticket. Therefore, the facts of the said casc arc not applicablc to the present case on hand. ln view t>f ihe abovc discussion, this Court is of the | 2oos ACJlges

MGP,J ('ma 9t8 2019

I /i l/

I ii

considered opinion that the applicants failcd to prove their initial burden to show that the deceased is a bona;tde passenger and further there is carelessness and ,egligent act of the deceased who tried to board moving MMTS train. Ilcncc, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and the appeal is devoid of merits.

¶83

In the result, the Civil Miscellancous Appeal is clismrssed No order as to costs-

¶84

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶85

SD/. B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGIST

¶86

To,

¶87

//TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER

¶88

¶89

The Railway Claims Tribrrnal Bench at Secunderabad. (with records, if anv) 2. one cc to sris. cHANDRAs_EKxnE XJrillt" b.Er"f 3. one CC ro smt. K. MANI DEEpla:il;;;;f5d;A 4. Two CD Copies Nj b

'j-

.--,! "

-ir:+i;'

III

ii.z:, .
li*F-i't.,: .i{

I{IGH COURT

DATED:21 11112023

JUDGMENT

.:l
r'l
.::,.i
ril E_ SrAI(-
16 iil'P' ;
t)
..,#ri
Y+
./)r

¶99

CMA.No.918 of 2019

¶100

DISMISSING.'THE CMA
YVITHOUT GOSTS

¶101

'l/ ,fr

¶102

;, -. ::.;l-
.tI;.i: .!t
=t'1'P:
-. .::.
j;i ":'#iil. l

Bathini Pochaiah v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathini Pochaiah v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E. Anjamma and 6 Others Vs Md. Habeebuddin and Another

Smt.P.Sarala Timothy Vs Smt Kasarapu Anantha Laxmi and 2 Others

M/S.Totaram Papalal Sons Vs Smt. Imrana Qutubuddin

Ganta Chinnaiah Vs Subash Chandra Bose Yuvajana Sangam and Anr.

Kuruva Gangamma and 3 Others Vs Union of India

G.Maddilety Vs the South Central Railway