Allowed

Mohd. Salma v. the Union of India

Telangana HC9 Nov 2023CMA/966/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench allowed the appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a death compensation claim. The Court held that absence of a ticket does not negative bona fide passenger status if initial burden is discharged. Awarded Rs 8 lakhs to survivors.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- awarded to the survivors in equal shares; Railways directed to deposit amount within two months.

Mohd. Salma Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TI-lURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF NOV=MBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONC,URABT-E SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶5

CIVIL MI SCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 966 OF 2018

¶6

Apceal Under Section 23 of Railway Claims^{Tribunal Act, 1987against} order ddtbd 29-06- 2016^passed rn O.A.(llil).No.^{153r>f 2013onthe file of the} Court of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad^{Bench,at Secunderabad.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Mohd Salma, w/o Late Sri Mohd. Tajoddin, agt-'d^{about 25 years, occ-} House',vife,

¶9

Mohd Mujeebdin @lVujeeb(Died), s/o M.A..^{Razak, aged about65 years,} Occ- Nil,

¶10

tUD NASIYA, w/o Mohd. Mudeebuddin, aged^{about 60 years, Occ- House}

¶11

All are r/o D.No. 12-7411, Reddy Colony, Mancherial,^{District Adilabad.}

¶12

Ap pel lants/Ap^pI ica nts

¶13

AND

¶14

The Union of lndia, rep by its General Manager, South^{Central Railway,Rail} Nilayam, at Secunderabad

¶15

...Respondents/Respondent

¶16

Counsel fcr the Appeilant(s): SRt.^{S CHANDRASEKHAR}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents:^{R MANGULAL(SC FOR CENTRAL} GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶18

The Corrrl made the following:^ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CTVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL No.966 OF 2O1a

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

Aggrieved by the dismissal Order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for brevity,^,the Tribunal), in OA II (U) No.153 of 2013, dated 29.06.2018, the applicants have preferred the present appeal.

¶22

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

¶23

The brief facts of the case are tha[, the applicants, who are the wife and parents of the deceased-Mohd.Ta.loddin (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceasedJ hled an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 79BZ seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased in an untoward incident that occurred on 25.O4.2013. According to the claimants, the deceased was working at NTPC, Godavarikhani in padmini potato Chips Company as labourer along with his wife. Just one week prior to the incident, the deceased along with his wife went to see his mother, who was suffering with health problems went to Mancherial and spent few days and on 25.4.2013 early morning the deceased started journey to Godavarikhani. The brother of wife of deceased \y .rurn. Javed went along with the deceased to Mancherial to give

¶24

¶25

MGt . Cuo 966 201E

¶26

send off. The deceased by purchasing journcy ticket for travelling from Mancherial to Ramagulldam boarded Bhagranagar Express train and till the train left the station, Mr.Javed was there. There was heavy rush on that day. During his journey, the deceased accidentally fallen down from the said running train between Peddampet and Mancherial and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Based on the intimation given by the railway administration, the R.P.S., Mancherial registered a case in crime No.93 of 2013, dated 25.4.2O 13. Hence the claim.

¶27

The respondent-Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the application and contended that the co-passengers have not pulled the alarm chain to stop the train and no such thing happened and hence, the possibility of the deceased falling from the said train as alleged is not true. It is further contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and there was no ticket found in his possession and that if the alleged accident was occurred, it is only negligence of the deceased and further the applicants have not filed the Final Report with an^'intention to suppress the actuai cause of the alleged death to gain undue advantage from railways and hence, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application.

¶28

MGP,J Cmo 966 2018

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

1 . Wlether ttre applicants are dependents of the deceased?

¶32

Wether th.e deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question and died as a result of an untoutard incident?

¶33

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

¶34

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.I and 2 and got marked Exs.A. 1 to A.8. On behalf of respondent-railways, no witness was examined, however, Divisional Railway Manager,s Report was marked as Ex.Rl.

¶35

The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, both orai and documentary, has dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/ applicants have llled the present appeal.

¶36

Heard Sri S.Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. Mangulal, learned Standing Counsel for Railways and perused the record.

¶37

The main contention of the learned counsel lor the applicants is that though the applicants proved their case with cogent evidence by examining AWs.l and 2 and by hling the relevant documents vide Exs.Al to A8, the tribunal without considering the same, has erroneously dismissed the application alleging that the deceased

¶38

MGt',. Cmo 966 2018

¶39

¶40

was not a bonafde^{passenger.Hence, prayedto allow the appeal} by awarding the^{just and reasonable compensation'}

¶41

Per contra,^{learned counselfor the respondentRailways} submitted that^{the Tribunal,after consideringall the aspects,has} rightly dismissed^{the application.Hence, interferenceof this Court} is not necessary

¶42

1 1 . Now the^{point for considerationis whether the Order passed} by the Tribunal^{is holdsgood or needsany interference?}

¶43

POINT:

¶44

This Court^{has perused the entirematerialavailableon} record. In^{order to provetheircase, the appiicant No'1' who is the} wile of the deceased^{was examined as AW' 1 and has reiterated the} averments of^{the petition. She furtherstated that police informed} about the^{incident to her neighboursand on such information,she} rushed to the^{place of incidentalong with others and identifiedthe} dead body of^{the deceased ln her cross-examinationshe stated} that, she^{is not an eyewitnessto the incident and she has not filed} journey ticket. Therefore,^{they have examined AW'2 in supportof} their case.^{AW 2 stated that on 25 '4 '2013 he went along with the} deceased^{to Mancherial railway station on his bike and the deceased} purchased^{journey ticket from Mancherial to Ramagundamand}

¶45

MGP,.1 Cmq 966 2018

¶46

¶47

atter 20 minutes Bharyanagar passenger train came to the platform and the deceased with a great difficulty boarded the train and thereafter he went to Luxettipet on his personal work. In his crossexamination he stated that the deceased purchased ticket in his presence. The cost of ticket is Rs.4/- or Rs.S/-. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of AWs. 1 and 2 to disbelieve their evidence. Further the applicants further relied on Exs.A 1 to A8 documents filed by them.

¶48

[t is pertinent to state that as per Ex.A1 First Information Report, a case was registered in crime No.93 of 2O13 based on the message/Ex.A2 received by Sri K.Srinivas, DySS/MCI stating that, "One male dead body aged 30 years lying at KM No.261l5 on up iine between Peddampet-Mancherial. Informed by on duty Keyman Sri Satyanarayana-Pocharam U.No.3/MCI." Ex.A3 attested copy of inquest report, which was relied on by the applicants discloses that, "on 25.4.2OI3 at about 7-00 a.m. dead body was found lying at KM No.261 / 5- I , UP line". Inquest report further shows that the panchayatdars opined based on the place of incident, the injuries caused to the deceased, the statements given by witnesses and blood relatives, it appears that, on 25.4.2013 the deceased left the house in the morning 4-00 a.m. informing his wife residing at Rallapet that he was going to Godavarikhani from Mancherial in the Bbirsranagar train and on 25.4.2013 before 7-O0 hours while \

¶49

MGI., Cnu 966 201fi

¶50

¶51

travelling in some unknown train accidentally lallen down from the said train at KM No.261/5-1 between UP & DN track, between Mancherial-Peddampet railway station and receiving^grievous head injury, broken left leg and heavy bleeding he died."

¶52

Ex.A4 postmortem examination report shows the^causeof death of the deceased as, "massive sub-dural hemorrhage^{due to} head injury." Further Ex.AS attested^{copy of chargesheetclearly} discloses that there is no foul^play is suspected in the^{cause of} death of the deceased, and it is a clear^{case of "Accidental Deathby} fell down from unknown running train".^{Admittedly, no journey} ticket was filed by the applicants^{and as per the inquest reporta1so,} no journey ticket was seized from the^{possession. Mere non-} possession of^journey ticket, it cannot^{be said that the deceasedis} not a bono fide passenger.

¶53

[n Rina Devi v. Union of Indiar, the^{HonourableSupreme} Court held as follows:

¶54

'We thus hold that mere^{presenceof a body on the} Railway premises will not be^{conclusive to hold that} injured or deceased was a bona^{fide passengerfor which} claim for compensation could be^{maintained.However,} mere absence of ticket with such^{injured or deceased will} not negative the claim that he^{was a bona fide passenger.} Initial burden will be on the^{claimant whichcan be}

'12otsy^{3 sccszz}

MGP,J Cma 966 2018

discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly. "

¶59

In the instant case, the applicants have hled aflidavits of AWs.l and 2 along with the documentary evidence in the form of Exs.Al to A5 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 ftde passenger.

¶60

17 . On the other hand, no witness was examined on behalf of the respondent-Railways except filing of Ex.Rl Divisional Railway Manager's report. It clearly shorvs that it was prepared based on the statements of four witnesses i.e., Sri N.Ravinder Reddy, Loco pilot, Sri B.Laxminarayana, Guard, Sri K.Srinivas, Dy.SS and Sri Sat5ranarayana Pocham, Key man and concluded that,lthere is no any authentic record or evidence that,^''the victim travelled by train and there is no any journey ticket to consider him as a bona frde passenger." It seems that neither eyewitness to the incident nor any blood relatives of the deceased or any third party was examined in support of their contention. Even before the Tribunal also, the Railways failed to examine any witness in support of their case. In vierq_of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the

¶61

MGt, Cmo 966 2018

¶62

¶63

considered opinion that the^{Tribunalmisconceivcdthe evidenceol} AWs.l and 2 and the documents^{frledby them and came to a wrong} conclusion that the deceased^{was not a bona fide passenger. Thus,} it is clearly established that^{the deceasedwas a bona lide passenger} at the time of incident.^{Hence, the applicantsare entitledfor} compensation.

¶64

At this^{juncture, the learnedcounsel for the appellants relied} upon a decision of the^{Apex Court in the case of Unionof India vs'} Radha Yadav2, wherein it^{was held as follows:}

¶65

" 10. The ksue raised in tlrc^{matter doesnot} really require ang^{elaborotionas in our uiew,the} judgment of this Court in the case of Rina^Deui,2O1B ACJ 1441 (SC/, is^{uery clear. Whot this Court has laid} doutn is that the^{amountof compensationpayable on} the date of accident uith^{reasonoblerate of interest} shall first be calculoted.^{If the amount so calculatedis} less than the amount^{prescibed as on the date of the} a u-tard., the claimant^{toould be entitled to higher of} these ttuo amounts.^{Tlrcrefore, if the liabilitghad aisen} before the amendment^{was brought in, the basic ftgure} uould. be as^per the^{Sclrcduleas u)as in existence} before the amendment^{and on such bosicftgure} reasonable rate of interest^{uould be calculated'If there} be ang differencn^{betuteen the omount so calculated} and the amount^{prescribedin the Scheduleos on the} date of the anuard,^{the higher of tuo} frgures^utouldbe

'^{(2004) 2 scc1}

MGP,J Cma 966 2018

I I

tLrc measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident tuhich occur.red before amendmen| the basic fiqtre utould be Rs.4,0O,00O/-. If, after applging reasonable rate of interest, tLe finat ftgure^{were to be} less than Rs.8,OO,OOO/-, uthtch utas brought in by utag of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.B,OO,O11/ -. If, hotueuer, the amount of oiginal compensation u_tith rate of interest u)ere to exceed the sum of Rs.B,0O,O00/ - the compensation would be in terms of ftgure in excess of Rs.8,00,O00/ _. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, tLe matter is crystal cleor. "

¶71

The applicants are also entitled for interest @ Tok per annum on the compensation amount as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kamukagl a. union of Indiaa. From the date of accident i.e., 25.04.2013 to rhe date of order i.e., 09.11.2023, the applicants are entitled for intere st for l0 years 6 months 14 days. The appellants are held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,O0,0OO/- along with interest @ 7o/o p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its rearisation. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, the final rrgure is ress than Rs.8,00,000/-, hence, appellants are entitled to Rs.g,O0,O0O/_.

¶72

3 Crvil Appeal No. 3799 of 2023 (Arising our of SLp (C) No. t7062/20221decided on 16.0s.2023

¶73

¶74

MG, Cnta 966 201t;

¶75

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeai is allowed and the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, in OA ll (U) No.153 of 20i3 dated 29.6.2018 is^{set aside.} Consequently claim application is allowed by awarding^the compensation of Rs.8,OO,OOO/-. Since^{the applicantNo.2died,the} applicant Nos.1 and 3 are entitled in^{equal shares. The respondent} Railways is directed to deposit the compensation^{before the Tribunal} within a period of two months from^{the date of receipt of a copy of} this^judgment. On such deposit,^{the applicantNos. Iand 3 are} permitted to withdraw the entire^{compensation awarded to them} without furnishing any security.^{There shall be no order as to} costs.

¶76

Pending Miscellaneous apphcations,^{if any,sha11 standclosed'}

¶77

SD/. C.V. Nf,ALLIKARJUNA^VAR A JOINT REGIST R

¶78

//TRUE COPY//

¶79

SECTION OFFICER

¶80

To, '1 . The Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad 2. One CC to sRl. S CHANDRASEKHAR^Advocate [oPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. R MANGULAL^{(CENTRALGOVERNMENT} COUNSEL) Advocate tOPUCI

¶81