Allowed

Bndari Saritha and 3 Others v. the Union of India

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023CMA/963/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal of a compensation claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal regarding the death of a passenger. The High Court held that absence of a ticket did not negate the claim of bona fide passenger status, allowing the claim and awarding enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order set aside; compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- awarded to applicants with 2% interest; Respondent directed to deposit amount within two months.

Bndari Saritha and 3 Others Vs the Union of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THESTATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶6

CIVIL MISCELL^{ANEOUS APPEAL NO: 963 oF 2018}

¶7

Appeal Under^{Section 23 of RailwayClaims Tribunal Act' against the} .luogme;i dated^{31 .07 2018 madein o A.(liU)'No 78 of 2012 on the file of the} iiiL"rrrr of The^{Railway ClaimsTribunal, SecunderabadBench'at Secunderabad}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bandari Saritha^{w/o LateSri B. Ramesh,R/o Ushannapallyvillage'Kalva} Srirampur Mandal,^{District Karimnagar'}

¶10

Uiatrunsai,^{S/o late Sri B Ramesh,lgedabout'10 years'Occ- student' Minor} - under the guardianship of B. Saritha, the appellant No'1 herein'

¶11

Bandari Ankush,^{Slo late Durgaiah, aged about 61 years' Occ-.Retired.worker} - .- singrruni Collories "o*irny tiiited, Rlo Srirampur village' Mandal Mancherial, District^Mancherial

¶12

Bandari Srgrnrrra,^{'WoB- Ankush, R/o Srirampur village' Mandal} Mancherial, District^Mancherial

¶13

...APPellanUAPPlicants

¶14

AND

¶15

The Union Of^{lndia,representedby its General Manager' South CentralRailway'} Rail Nilayam,^at secunderabad

¶16

...RespondenuRespondent

¶17

: STi S CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for the^APPellants

¶18

: STi KALVALA^SANJEEV Counsel for the^ResPondent

¶19

The Court Judgment^{the following} : JUDGMENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSINI

¶21

Civil Miscellaneous A Deal No.963 OF 2018

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the Act) aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2018 in OA II (U) No.78 of 2012 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, wherein the claim petition filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,0O,O0Ol- for the death of Sri Bandari Ramesh, was dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that applicant No. 1 is the wife, applicant No.2 is the minor son of applicant No. 1 and Late Bandari Ramesh (hereinafter will be referred as "deceased") and applicant Nos.3 and 4 are his parents. In the last week of January, 2012, tl:,e deceased, residing at Ushannapally Village, went to his parents house at Sreerampur Village. Then, with an intent to go the Secunderabad on his personal work, the deceased went to Mancherial railway station on 3O.Ol.2Ol2,

¶26

MGP,J cMA 963_201a

¶27

¶28

purchased a^journey ticket from Mancherial to Secunderabad and boarded the Train No.72724^{A.P.Express in the presenceof} his brother's friend Bheemesh,^{who had come} to^Mancherial Station to give some money to the^{deceased. During the travel,} the deceased accidentally fell^{downbetween Peddapally and} Kolanur railway stations. The railway^{staff, afterobserving the} incident, called 108 Ambulance and^{referred him to the} Government Hospital, Sultanabad^{where he succumbedto the} injuries while undergoing treatment'^{The journey ticket is said} to have been lost during the accident.^{The applicants, whoare} the dependents of the deceased,^{have filed claim applicationfor} Rs.4,00,00O/ - as compensation.

¶29

The respondent railways filed^{written statementdisputing} the claim and denying their liability^{to pay the compensation.It} was contended that the deceased^{was not a bona} fide^passenger and his death was not due^{to any untoward incident and prayed} to dismiss the application.

¶30

Based on the pleadings of the^{parties,the Tribunal framed} the following issues:

¶31

Whether the applicants are dependents of tlre deceased?

MGP,J cMA 963_2018

Whether the deceased utas a bona frde passenger of tte train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?

¶36

Whether the appliconts are entitled to compensation as claimed and to uhat relieJ?

¶37

Before the Tribunal, the applicants, in order to substantiate their claim, examined the applicant No. 3 as AW1 apart from examining one K. Bheemesh as AW2 and got marked Exs.Al to A7. On behalf of the Respondent, no witness was examined, however, got marked Ex.Rl i.e., Divisional Railway Manager's report.

¶38

The Learned Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, observed that there is no evidence to prove that the deceased was a bona ftde passenger of the train and dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶39

Heard Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire record.

¶40

MCP,J cMA_963 2018

¶41

¶42

g. The main contention of the^{Iearned counselfor the} applicants is that the applicants^{have proved their caseby} examining AWs I and 2 and relying^{on documentsunder} Exs.A1 to A7, but the learned Tribunal^{without considering the} same has erroneously dismissed^{the claim applicationon the} ground that the applicants failed to estabiish^{that the deceased} was a bona fde passenger and that he^{died in an untoward} incident.

¶43

Per contra, learned Standing^{Counsel for the respondent} contended that the deceased did not^{die inan untoward} incident and that he would fall^{under theexceptions} enumerated under Section^{124-A of the Act.}

¶44

I 1. In order to substantiate their^{contentions,the applicants} got examined AWs I and 2. AW¹ ,^who is the^{father of the} deceased, in his evidence^{reiterated the avermentsof the} application. AW I in his cross-examination^{admitted that the} ticket was not recovered^{from the deceasedat the time inquest} and based on the death message^{from tJle Dr. K.Chari, the FIR} was registered and there was no eyewitness to^{the incident.} AW2, who is the friend of close relative^{of the deceased, deposed} that on the date of accident i.e. on 30.O1.2012,^{at the requestof} one Ravinder, he went to Mancherial railway station,^purchased

MGP,J cMA 963 2018

journey ticket for travelling from Mancherial to Secunderabad in A.P.Express and handed over the said^journey ticket as well as an amount of Rs.500/- to the deceased and left the railway station. It is his further evidence that in the evening hours,^he came to know that the deceased fallen down from the running train between Peddapally-Kolanur railway stations, received grievous injuries and died while undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital, Sultanabad. In the cross examination, he admitted that his statement was recorded by the police and that he stated before the police that he purchased the ticket for the deceased.

¶50

A perusal of Ex.Al - FIR discloses that the deceased had fallen from the train and sustained injuries and died in an untoward incident. Further, Ex.A6 - Charge Sheet discloses that the police, after thorough investigation, has laid the charge sheet stating that the deceased while proceeding to Hyderabad in A.P. Express train from Mancherial, on the way had accidentally fallen down from train at K.M.No.304/O between Peddapelli and Konanur railway stations and sustained severe injuries and therefore, the deceased was shifted to Government Civil Hospital, Sulthanabad by 108 Ambulance for treatment, where, he died while undergoing treatment and thus, it is a

MCP,J cMA,963 2018

I li i

clear case of Accidental Death due to^{fall from A.P.Expresstrain} No.12724. Therefore, admittedly, the deceased^{while travelling} in A.P.Express train No. 12724 fell down^from it in^{an untoward} incident, sustained injuries and died.

¶55

on behalf of the respondent,^{no witnesswas examined,} however, got marked Ex. R 1 - Divisional^{RailwayManager's} report. The said report of the Inspector IRPF lKaztpet^discloses that in the course of investigation into^{untoward incident, they} have got examined four witnesses i.e. K.^{Sheshadry,Con-} 385lKU, K. Raghu Prasad, JEIP.Way/PDPL,^{Kunta Suresh} - Track Man and B.V.Ramana Murthy -^{Guard/Mail/Exp/Sc.} The report further discloses that the^{hrst witness hasstated} that one person has fallen down from^{running tratn No.12724} A.P.Express at Km.No.3O4/O between^{PDPL-KOLRRailway} stations and later, he was shifted to^{Government Hospital and} that on enquiry with Hospital staff, they^{revealed that the said} person died. In the conclusion of the said^report, it^{was stated} that From the aboue enquiies, it is^{establislrcdthat the trackman} stated that he noticed one^{person lyingbetu-teen tlP & DN trocks} after passing Train No.12724 AP Express'^{The natiue place of the} deceased is uery nearer to the spot^{ond the train is not hnuing} halt till Kazipet. Moreouer the decectsed^{LUos not hauittgjourneg}

¶56

¶57

MGP,J cMA 963 20t8

¶58

ticket. There is no egewitness to speak about the fallen down of the person from the train. Therefore, it is clear that except stating so, there are no eyewitnesses to speak about falling down of the person from the train and that the deceased was not having a journey ticket, nothing was mentioned in the report suspecting about the untoward incident.

¶59

It is pertinent to state that a perusal of Ex.A2/lnquest Report discloses that the second witness i.e. K. Raghu Prasad, JE/P.Way/ PDPL, who is stated to have been examined in the DRM report, is the same person, who attended as a panch witness at the time of inquest. Further, in the inquest report, he is shown as the person who saw the deceased while fallen down from A.P.Express and referred him to Government Hospital, Sultanabad by calling 108 for providing treatment. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased did not fall from the train and died and no untoward incident happened and that as no ticket is found, he is not a bona fide passenger.

¶60

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

(2019) 3 SCC 572

MGP,J cMA 963 2018

I li I ll

I ;

"In Pushpo (supra) a hawker died in^{the courseoJ} boording o train. It uas held that he uas^{not entitled to} compensation as it uLas a case of 'self inJlicted^injury'.The releuant obseruations are: "Such an attempt^{bg a hauker} has been uieued by the trial Court os something^amounting to ciminal negligence on his^part and also^{an effort to inflict} injuries to himself. The trial Court^{reasonedthat ifthe} deceased tnd to sell his^goods bg^{boarding a train, he} should haue ensured to do so onlg uhen^{it utas quitesafe} for him to get on to the train or otherwise^{he could hnue auoided} catching the train and uaited for onother^{train to come. It} also hinted that there utas absolutely no^{compulsion or hurry} for^{the deceased in the present case to make an attemptto} somehotl or the other board the^{trainuthileit uas gatheing} speed."

¶68

16.5 In Shgam Naragan^(supra), same^{uietu utas} taken uLhich b as follottts: '6(ii) I^{connot agreewith the} orguments urged on behalf of the^{appellants/appliconts in} the focts of the present case because^{there is a difference} betueen an untoroord incident and on act^{oJ ciminal} negligence. Whereas negligence u.till not^{disentitlegrantof} compensation under the Railuags Act,^{houeuer, once the} negligence becomes a criminal negligence^{and seLf-inJlicted} injury then compen-sation cannot be^{granted. Thrb is} specificallg prouided in the first^{prouiso to Section124-A of} the Railutays Act tuhich^prouides that compensation^{will not} be pagable in co.se the death takes^{placeon accountof} suicide or attempted suicide, setf inflicted^{iniury, bono} fide passenger's otun ciminal act or an act committed bA the deceased in tLrc state oJ intoxication or insanitg."

¶69

16.6 We are unable to uphold the aboue uieu.t as the concept of 'self inflicted injury'uLould require intention^to

MGP,J cMA 963 2018

{

inJlict such injury ond not mere negligence oJ ang particular degree- Doing so tuould amount to inuoking the principle of contibutory negLigence Luhich cannot be done in tte case of liabilitg based on'no fault theory'. We mag in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in united India Insurance Co. Ltd. uersus Sunil Kumar34 laging dotun that plea of negligence of the uictim cannot be allowed in claim bosed on 'no fault theory'under Section 163A of the Motor Vehjcles Act, 1988. Accordinglg, ue hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a troin will be an 'untou.tard incident' entitling a uictim to the compensation ond uill not fall under the proui.so to Section 124A merelg on the plea of negligence of the uictim as a contributing factor."

¶74

In view of the principle laid down in the above said authority, mere not possessing a ticket with such deceased will not negate the claim that he was not a bona./ide passenger. Moreover, the 3.d applicant as AWI has brought to the notice of the Court that the journey ticket was purchased by AW2 and handed over to the deceased, whereas in the statement of AW2 given to the police, he has stated that the deceased himself has purchased the journey ticket after he handed over an amount of Rs.500/- to the deceased.

¶75

In the case on hand, the applicants have hled afhdavits of AWs 1 and 2 along with the documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A I to A7 and thus, they have discharged their initial burden. Accordingly, the burden shifts on to the respondent to \

MGP,J cMA 963,2018

establish that the deceased was not a^bona fde^{passenger. In} discharge of such burden, the respondent^{got marked Ex.Rl} i.e., DMR report. Except hling DMR report, the^respondent railways did not adduce any evidence.^{Merely becausethe} deceased was not^{possessingjourney ticket, it cannotbe said} that the deceased did not die in an^{untowardincident.} Therefore, the railways could not^{establishthat the deceased is} not a bona fide passenger and died in an^{untowardincident.} Although no ticket was recovered from^{the body of the deceased,} in view of the law laid down by the^{Apex Court in Kamruanissa} v. Union of India,z mere absence of^{ticket with the deceased} will not negate the ciaim that he was a bona fide^{passenger,this} Court holds that the deceased was a^bona fide^{passenger.Thus,} the contention of the Iearned counsel^{for the respondent that no} untoward incident has occurred,^{cannot be sustained.}

¶81

A perusal of the^impugned order^{discloses that the} learned Tribunal without considering^{the evidence of AW2 has} erroneously held that the deceased was not a^bona ftde passenger of the train as no^journey ticket was recovered^from him at the time of inquest. Learned Tribunal has^disbeiieved the version of witness K. Raghu Prasad, JE/P.Way,^Peddapalli

2 AIR 2017 SC 1436

MGP,J cMA 963 201a

3.{tir,-- *""7

in Ex.R1 - Divisional Railway Manager's Report observing that he is not an eyewitness to the incident though the same person is cited as a panch witness/eyewitness in the inquest report.

¶87

Although there are minor contradictions in the evidence of AW2, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, the interpretation that is beneficial to the applicants has to be preferred, as the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a beneficial legislation. Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants have established that the deceased died in an untoward incident.

¶88

Therefore, in view of the principle laid down in the above said authorities, 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.

¶89

Coming to the quantum of compensation, in case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment i.e., on 3O.O1.2012, the prevailing basic f-rgure in respect of death case

MGP,J cMA_963 2018

was Rs.4.O0 lakhs, which has been subsequently enhanced^to Rs.8.O0 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 Court in the case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav3,^wherein it was held as follows:

¶94

" 10. The issue raised in^{the matter d.oes not} reallg require ang elaborotion as in our uieu.t, the judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Deui, 2018 ACI 1441^(SC), is uery clear. What this Court hos^loid doun is that the omount of compensation^poyable on the date of accident uith reo.sonable^rate of^interest shall first be calculated. If tle amount so calculated^is less thon the omount prescibed as on the date^{of the} antard, the claimant u.tould be entitled to higher of^these tu)o amounts. Therefore, if tlLe liabilitg had aisen before the amendment utas brought i4 the basic ftgure^u-tould be as per the Schedule os u)as in existence before^the omendment ond on such ba.sic figure reasonable^{rote of} interest u.tould be calcuLated. If there be ang difference betueen the amount so calculated and the amount prescibed in the Schedule o.s on the date of the autard, the higLrcr of tu.to figtres uould be the measure^of compensation. For instance, in cose of a death in an accident tuhich occured before amendmen| the bosic ftgure^{wouldbe Rs.4,OO,OO1/ -. If,afier applying} reasonable rate of interest, the ftnat figure utere to be less than Rs.8,OO,OOO/ -, uthich u.tas brought in by utag of amendment, the claimant uould be entitled^to

¶95

r lzoo+; z scc r

MGP,J cMA-963_2018

Rs.8,OO,OO0/ . If, Latoeuer, the amount of oiginal compensation uith rate of interest u)ere to exceed the sum of Rs.8,OO,OOO/- the compensation utould be in terms of ftgtre in excess of Rs.8,OO,O)O/ -. The idea is to afford the beneftt of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. "

¶100

The applicants are also entitled for interest @ Z%o per annum on the compensation amount as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kannukagi a. ur.ion o! Inid.a+. From the date of application i.e., 14.03.2012 to the date of judgment i.e. 72.O9.2023, the applicants are entitled for interest for 11 years 6 months = 138 months. Thus, the applicants are entitled for the compensation along with interest as mentioned below:

¶101

Thus, the interest entitled by the applicants is calculated as follows:

¶102

Rs.4,O0,0O0/- x 7 /lOO = Rs.3,22,00O /- (for | 1 years O5 months 29 days i.e., 138 months)

¶103

Therefore, the interest along with the compensation amount, to which the applicants are entitled prevailing at the

¶104

a Civil Appeal No. 3799 ot 2023 (A_rising our of SLp (C) No. t7O62l2O22l declded on 16.05.2023

¶105

MGP,J cMA_963 2018

¶106

¶107

time of the accident comes to Rs.7,22,0OOl-^{(Rs.4,00,000/-+} Rs.3,22,000/-).

¶108

However, as per the decision of the^{Apex Court in Radha} Yadau's case (supra), if, after applying^{reasonable rateof} interest, the final hgure were to be less than^Rs.8,O0 ,OOO /-, which was brought in by way of latest amendment,^the applicants would be entitled to Rs.8,0O,0OOl-.^{lf, however,the} amount of original compensation with rate of^{interestwereto} exceed the sum of Rs.8,OO,000/-, the compensation^{wouldbe in} terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,0O0/-. ln^{the instant case,} the final figure comes to Rs.7,22,OOO /-.^{Therefore,the} applicants are entitled for the compensation of^{Rs.8,00,O00/-.}

¶109

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous^{Appealis allowed} and the order dated 31.07 .2ola in OA II^{(U) No.78 of 2Ol2} passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad is set aside and accordingly^the application filed by the applicants seeking^{compensation is} allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.8,0O,O00/- to^the applicants. The respondent Railways is directed to^depositthe compensation before the Tribunal within a^{period of two months} from the date of receipt of a copy of this^{judgment. On such} deposit, applicants are entitled to equal shares^inthe