Allowed

Kadari Narsingam v. the Union of India

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023CMA/969/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed appeal against Railway Claims Tribunal order dismissing compensation claim for death of passenger. Court held burden shifts to Railways to prove passenger not bona fide. Awarded Rs. 8 lakhs with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest; Respondent Railways directed to deposit within two months.

Kadari Narsingam Vs the Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M,G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 969 OF 2018

¶7

Appeal Under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against orders dated 18-07-2018 passed in O.A.(llU).No. 349 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'l, Kadari Narsingam, w/o Late Sri K. Ramaiah, aged about 79 years, occ Retired Military Sipayee, R/o H.No.4-36, Kaatnapalli village, Choppandandi Mandal, District Karimnagar

¶10

KADARI RAJA LAXMI, Wo Kadari Narsingam, aged about 73 years, Occ House wife R/o H.No,4-36, Kaatnapalli village, Choppandandi Manilal, District Karimnagar.

¶11

...Appellants/Applicants

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

K.adari Vasantha, w/o late Kadari Dayanand, Aged about 31 years, occ: House wife, Residing in the House of Ratnaiah, Gandhi Nagdr colony, Near Labour Court, Godavarikhani, District Karimnagar.

¶15

Kadari Soniya, D/o late Kadari Dayanand, Aged about 20 years, occ student, Residing in the House of Ratnaiah, Gandhi Nagar colony, Near Labour Court, Godavarikhani, District Karimnagar.

¶16

...RespondenURespondent

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. S CHANDRASEKHAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.l : SRl. R MANGULAL (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3 : None appeared

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HONOURAB LE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶22

()

¶23

CTVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO.969 0F 201a

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

This Civil I\4iscellaneous Application is filed by the applicants under Section 23 ol the Railwa,v Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the .Act,) aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2O18 in OAIIU No.349 of 2015 passed by the learned Railu'a-v Claims Tribun:rl Secunclerabad Bench, at Secunderabad, wherein the claim petirion filed by the applicants claiming compensat-ion of lts.g,OO,O0O/- tor the death of Sri Kadari Dayanand, was dism js:recl.

¶26

For the sake of con,rcnience, hereinaftcr, the parties wiil be referred as per their array before the learned .Tribuna[,,.

¶27

The applicants as the clcpendents of the deceased seek compensation under Seclioi-r I2J A of the Railu.ay Act on account of death ol therr s(lrti'husband viz. Lalc Sri.Kadari Dayanand in an allr_.getl untr.;u.arcl incident while travelling as

¶28

i\4GP.J CNlr<sup>96S2O 18

¶29

bona fide^{passenger from Mancherial toRamagundam} ln Kagaznagar^{ExPresst rain'}

¶30

4..^{The brief facts ofthe case are that the SriKadari} Dayanand^{(hereinalter will be referred as 'deceased")'who is a} nativeofKatnepalliviltage'ChoppadandiMandal'Karimnagar District^{was rvorking as agriculturist' ApplicantNo' 1 is the} Nos.2^{ismother ofthedeceased and} father,^applicant and^{daughterof the} and 3^{are the wife} respondendt^{No' 2} deceased.^{On 26'07 '2O 15 Sri Kadari Dayanandleft the house} with an^{intent to find a suitablejob at Sirpurkagaznagaror} Macherial.

¶31

According^{to the applicants' on 27 'O7 '2015 the deceased} with an^{intent to go to Ramagundam purchaseda journeyticket} fromMancherialtoRamagundamandboardedKagazrta4ar Express^{at Mancherial railwaystation' but due to healyrush} and^{jerks he accidentailyfell down from the runningtrain at} MancherialRailwayStationandsustainedgrievousinjuries. Immediately^{he was shifted to Govt'Hospital' Mancherial but he} succumbedtoinjurreswhileundergoingtreatmentonthesame day.^{Further, it is statedthat on the verysame day i'e' on} 27 .O7^{.2015 at aboutO6:OO PM RailwayPolice informed through}

MGP,J cMA 959 2018

phone call about the death of the deceased which occurred while boarding the train from platform No. 2 and thereafter he informed the same to respondent No.2. The applicants, along with all their relatives went to Mancherial Government Hospital and identified the dead body of the deceased. porice recorded their statements and consequently based on report given by railway administration, a case was registered vide FIR No. 142 of 2 1O5 and after post mortem examination, the dead body of deceased u,as handed over to the family members. It is further stated that in the accident, some personal belongrngs and the Railway journey ticket bearing No. 8.4043 174g or. the deceased got lost. The deceased left behind his aged father, mother, wife and daughter as dependants.

¶36

The respondent hled their written statement disputing and denying the claim of the applicant. In the u,ritten statement, the respondent averred that the claim of the applicants about falling down of deceased from the alleged train on 27.02.2079 is a concocted story. The respondent also averred that the deceased who was standing offside the track suddenly tried to climb up on platform No.2, ancl in the process, he rr,'as hit by train and thus this is a case o[ run over and not a case of fall down from train and that the claim of the

¶37

MGP.J c,r,\ 969²⁰¹⁸

¶38

¶39

applicants that^{the Railwayjourney ticket of the victimgot lost} is a blatant^{lie. The applicantshave to provethat the victim was} a bonafide^{passenger as laid downunderSection 2(291 of the} Railways Act,^{1989.Withthese averments'the respondent} prays for dismissal^{of the claim application ln support of their} claim, the^{respondent has hled copy of DRM Report alongwith} its enclosures,^{copy of rough journal' statementof RW1 and ID} card of RW1^{markedas exhibitRI to R4 resp€ctively'}

¶40

7 Based on^{the pleadings of the parties'the Tribunal framed}

¶41

the following^issues:

¶42

1- Whether the^{deceasedutasa bona ftde} passenger of^{troinin question and died} as a result^{of an untoutard incident?} 2. Whether the^{applicant(s)is/ are} dePendents^{of tlrc deceasedPerson?} 3. Whether the^{applicant(s) is /ore} entitled to^{thecomPensationas} claimed?

¶43

To uhat relief

¶44

Before the^{Tribunal the applicantwas examined as AW1} and got^{marked Ex. A1 to A7' On behalfof the respondentRwl}

¶45

MGP,J cMA S6S 20 t8

¶46

)

¶47

was examined and exhibrt Rl to R4 got marked. Being not satisfied u'ith the evidence adduced bv the applicants, the learned Tribunal dismissed the application. Hence, the appeal by the applicants.

¶48

Heard both sides and perused the entire record

¶49

The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that they have proved their case by examining AW I and relying on documents under Exs.A I to A4, but the learned Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously dismissed the claim application on the ground that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona ftde passenger and that he died in an untoward incident. But the learned tribunal without considering the same has erroneously clismissed the claim application, hence prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the dismissal order.

¶50

1 1. karned Standing Counsel for the respondent contended that it is not a case of accidental fall from train, rather, it is a case of self inflicted injury and the applicants did not file full copy of PME Report to suppress actual cause of death. Thus,

MCP.J CMA 969 20¹⁸

1..

does not confer any^{right onapplicantstoclaim any} compensation and^{prayed to dismiss the appeal-}

¶56

ln view of the^{rival contention, this court has perusedthe} evidence adduced on both^{side. AWl, who is father of the} deceased has categorically^{statedon the dateof th€ incidenti e ,} on 27 .O7.2O15^{with an intent to searcha suitable job, the} deceased was going to^{Manchcrial and he has purchased} general journey ticket and^{boardedKagazoagarExpressand} accidentally fell down^{while trying toboard the train and} received grievous injuries^{and was shiftedto hospital'He} further deposed that^{he cameto know about lhe untoward} incident through^{phonecall by Railway police on the same day} at evening hours that^{his deceased son was hit by train on the} tracks while trying to^{board the train and informedhim about} the demise of his^{son while undergoing rreatment.}

¶57

A perusal of Exs.Al^{FIR and A2 inquestpanchanama} discloses that aII unknown^{male personagedabout 39 years} was fallen down from train^{No.17O36,Kagaznagar Express on} 27 .O7 .2015 while^{boardingand receivedinjurie sand while} undergoing treatment^{he succumbedto injuries. Ex.A2also} discloses that the deceased^{might have died due to fall from}

¶58

MGP..I (lMA 9.)9 20 l,!

¶59

¶60

train \r,hilc boarding and also discloses the injuries on the body of the dect'ascd i.e., the left thigh, waist and there is a grievous head injurl'. Ex.A3 post Mortem certihcate of the deceased cliscloses thar rhc deceased died on 27 .OZ .2OlS. Ex.A4 i.e., the Aadhar Card Copies of the applicants/dependents. Further, Railway Drvisional Manager stated that he received a message through phonc call from Deputy Superintendent of Mancherial Railway Station that a male person fallen down from Train No. 17O36 Exprcss and the same message was repeated by RWl, i.e. on du ty Loco pilot of the Train on the said date i.e .27.O7 .2015 at about 19:45 hrs. Furthermore, on duty guard of the train stated that rvhen train arriving MCI Railway station in mean timc loco pitot informed him through walki talkie that one unknou,n male person standing off side suddenll, tried to climb platform No.2 at that time engine hit him and the injured was shiftcd to hospiral.

¶61

It u,as further stated that the cause of death of deceased was not due accidental fall from running Kagaznagar Express Train, rathcr, it r.l'as due to negligence on part of the deceased to climb over the plarform resulting in self inflicted injury. It is pertrnent to note that the case in Crime No. 142/2015 was \ regiptered by RPS, Manchcrial based on the message received

¶62

MGP,J (lNlr\ 969 2018

¶63

¶64

¶65

from U.K^{Kesari, who isDy/ SS/ Mancherial TheRPS'} Mancherial^{after due investigationhas come to a conclusion} [hat the^{deceased died whiletrying to trespass the track for} climbing on^the Plafform.

¶66

It is^{pertinent to note that in Ex' A2-lnquest' it is clearly} mentioned that^{train journeyticket bearing No-B4O431748 from} the deceased,^{along with other belongings, was found'AW- i} also categorically^{deposedthat his deceasedson waspossessing} valid^{journey ticket but the said journey ticket was not handed} over to them.^{Even assumingfor a moment that the journey} ticket was^{not found from the possessionof the deceased and} that the deceased^{wastravelling in train was admittedand the} untoward incident^{occurred due to falling down from the train} was also established,^{the burden of proof mustbe shifted on} railway that the^{deceased passengerwas not abonafied} passenger. As^{there is every possibilities that the journeytickets} would have^{been lost while the deceasedfell down from the} running train^{or while taking the deceasedto the hospital'In} this context it^{is relevantto refer decision of madrasHighcourt}

M(;P.J cMA 969 2018

in Maleshwari v. Union of Indial, wherein the High Court held as follows:

¶72

'The DRM report also reueals that the deceased had trauelled in the train, sitting on the ' footboard, LL,ithout possessing a ualid ticket, fell down from the ntnning train. Hou-teuer, the inquest report states thot the deceased uas not Lnlding a ualid journey ticket, but his trauelling in the train utas admitted and the untoutard incident occurred due to falling doun from the train raas also establisLed.

¶73

This Court is of an opinion that once an untoword incident is established and the death ocanrred due to falling doun from the running train and if the journey ticket uas not retieued, the burden of proof must be shifted on the RailuaAs that the deceased possetqer Luas not a bona fide passenger. Hotueuer, there is euery possibilitg that the^journeg ticket uould haue been lost uthile the deceased fell douLn from the ntnning train or uhile taking the deceased to the tnspital or for post mortem or someuhere else."

'^zozz ed t:te

\ \

MCP,J cM.A 969 20I a

Once tLe untouLard incident is established_ dnd tLE death ocanrred due to falting dotun from the running train, then the non-auailability of journeg ticket cannot alone be a ground to reject the claim petition. In such cirrumstancres, the onus lies on the Railutags to establish that the deceased uas not a bona fi.d.e passenger.,'

¶80

With respect to the deceased was a bonafide passenger, the Tribunal observed that it was stated in the DRM report that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Further relaying on the statement of RW-l Loco Pilot of the train who was a Eye witness of the incident it was held that the deceased was trying to trespass the track for climbing onto the platform and died due to hit by Kagaznagar Express at Mancherial railway station. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the deceased was not a bonahde passenger and that the accident was not an untoward incident and holding so claim application was dismissed.

¶81

It is pertinent to note that RW1, who is working as Loco Pilot, who is one of the eye witness to the accident, was examined on behalf of the respondent. RWi denied a suggestion given by learned counsel for the applicants that the deceased

MGP..J cMA ')69 2018

died due to fall from train. F urther he stated that one unknown male person standing at offside suddenly tried to climb platform No.2 at that time, his train engine has hit the deceased and as a result, deceased received grievous injuries. Immediately he informed about the fatal accident via walkie talkie to Railway Guard and Deputy Sration Superintendent and later he was shifted to Government Hospital, Macherial. Furthermore, D. Sambaih, who is on duty guard of the . train No. 17O36 Kagaznagar Express on said date stated that on arriving at Mancherial railway station loco pilot informed him through walkie talkie that one unknown male person standing at off side suddenly trying to climb platform No.2 was hit by train engine and the person received grievous injuries.

¶86

The iearned Tribunal failed to appreciate the statements of Dy.SS Mancherial that the deceased was fallen down from the train. Further, learned tribunal erred in appreciating the statements of RPF constable in the Ex. A2 inquest report which is crucial in the present case r.l,ho reveals that while cleceased was trying to board the train from platform No.2 accidentally fallen down and received injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. He also stated that journey ticket was found with deceased. It is significant to note that the documents in Ex. A_ 1

--') t

MGP,J cMA 969 2018

i i l

FIR appended with complaint copy of Dy/ SS of Macherial Railway station are crucial first hand information u.hich is reported immediately after the incident had happened and in that documen t and the statements of railway stall who attended the deceased constitute a crucial statement in deciding the case and there statements cannot be negated.

¶93

As observed above, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negate the claim that he was a bona y'de passenger. Moreover, rearned counsel for the appelant, has brought to the notice of this Court that the only evidence relied by the respondent is in the form of RWl i.e., Md. yakub Pasha, u,ho deposed that while the train was reaching on MCI Railu,ay Station, an unknown male person was standing off_side and suddenly tried to claim platform No.2 and hit by his train,s engine. But as per the version of Dy.SS/RDM i.e., M. Mada Swamy, the Dy.SS/Manchiryal by name U.K. Kesari informed him through phone that one male person aged about 35 years fallen down from Train No. 17O36 express; and that Loco pilot Md. Yakub Pasha also informed him the same tnformation, which was informed by U.K.Kesari the Dy.SS/Manchiryal has given. Thus, there are contradictory versions among the employees of railways.

¶94

l-l

¶95

MGP,.J cMA 969 2018

¶96

Furthermore, even as per the inquest report under Ex.A2, the deceased fell down from the train while boarding it. Even as per FIR under Ex.Al, which was registered based on the bomplaint hled by Dy.SS/RDM i.e., M. Mada Swamy, the deceased fell down from the moving train. The incident occurred on 27.07.2015 and whereas the DRM Report under Ex.R1 was prepared almost a year after Lhe date of the accident. Moreover, the DRM report was prepared based on the FIR, pME, inquest, ticket verihcation and related documents of loco pilot and guard particuiars. However, the railway authorities solely based on the evidence of loco pilot of train No. 17036 express, have come to a conclusion that while trying to trespass the track for climbing onto the platform, the deceased died. The railway authorities have not considered the statements of the family members of the deceased or the statement given by Dy.SS/RDM i.e., M. Mada Swamy, which proves that the deceased died by falling down from the train.

¶97

2I. Further, a perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned Tribunal did not whisper about the documentary evidence relied upon by the applicants in the impugned order, more particularly when the documentary evidence in the form of Exs.Al, A2, A3, clearly establishes that the deceased died in an

(

MGP,J cMA_969_20I8

l l :

untoward incicient. Further, merely because the deceased was not possessing journey ticket, rt cannot be said that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that no untoward incident has occurred, cannot sustain. Therefore, from the above discussion and the decisions referred this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants have established that the deceased died in an untoward incident.

¶103

The Honourable Suplsrne Court in Kamrunnissa v Union of India,2 wherein it was observed as follows: .We thus hold. that mere presen(:e of a bod.g oit the railuag premises uill not be conclusiue to hold that injured or d.eceased. u.tas a bona jid.e passenger for uthich claim for compensation could. be maintoined_ Hot,teuer, r;ere absence of ticket u,tith such injured or deceased. will rwt negatiue the claim thnt Le utas a bona fid.e passenger. Initiat burden tuill be on the claimant uthich can be discharged bg fi.ting an afftdauit of the releuant facts and burden uill then shift on tte Railwags

¶104

and the tssue can be decid_ed on the facts shown or

2 AIR 2017 SC 1436

MGP,J CNIA 969 201u

the attending circumstances. This utill haue to be dealt uith from case to case on the basis of facts found.^{Tlrc legal positionin this regard utill stand} e xp laine d acco rding Ig. "

¶110

Keeping in view a1l facts and c.ircumstantial evidence available on the file and the observations made by the Apex Court in Kamrunnissa (supra), this Court is of the considered view that mere absence of ticket with the deceasecl will not negate the claim that he was a bono fde passenger, however, initial burden will be on the applicants, which was duly discharged by them by adducing the evidence of AWI and Exs.Al to A4.

¶111

It is 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 enacted to protect the interests of the passengers. Similar view was taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar3.

(100E) 9 SCC 517 \ \

MGP,J cMA 969 2018

Therefore, in^{view of the principlelaid dou'n in the'above} said aulhorities, this^{Courtis of the considered opinionthat the} Railway Claims Tribunal^{without considering all theseaspects} came to the^{wrongconclusionbydismissingtheciaim} application of the^{applicants and hence, the saidltndings of the} Tribunal are hereby^{set aside hoiding that the applicants are} entitled for compensation^{as the deceased died in an 'Untoward} Incident'.

¶116

Coming^{to the quantumof compensation,in case of death} in an accident^{which occurred before amendment i'e ,on} 27.O7.2L.15, the^{prevailing basicfigure in respect of death case} was Rs.4.0O lakhs,^{which has been subsequentlyenhanced to} Rs.8.OO lakhs as^{per the RailwayAccidents and Untoward} Incidents^{(Compensation) AmendmentRules,2O I 6} At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to^{the decision of the Apex} Court in the case^{of Union of India vs' RadhaYadava,wherein} it was held as follows:

¶117

" 1O. The i.ssue raised in tlrc motter^{does not} reallg require ang elaboration^as in^{ouruiettt,the} judgment of thi.s Court in the case of Rina Deui, 2018 ACJ 1441 (SC), is uerg clear.^{Whotthis Court}

¶118

'^{(2004)2 scc1}

MGP,J cMA 969 201 n

has laid dou.tn is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accid.ent uith reasonable rate of interest shall first be calanlated If the amount so calculated rs /ess than the amount prescribed as on the date of the anaald., the claimant would be entitled. to higlrer of these tu.)o amounts. Therefore, if tle liability had ansen before the amendment utas brought in, the basic ftgure^utould be as per the Sched.ule as LUas tn eistence before the amend.ment and on such basrc frgure reasonable rate of interest wouLd be calculated. If there be any d.ifference betueen the amount so calanlated and the amount prescibed in the Schedule as on the date of the au,tard, the higher of tuo ftgures taould be the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a deoth in an accident tuhich occuned. before amend.ment, the basic ftgure u-lould, be Rs.4,0O,O0O/ __ If, after applging reasonable rate of interest, the jlnal ftgure were to be less than Rs.g,OO,\O/ _, which u.tas brought in bg utag of amend_ment, the claimant utould be entitled to Rs.g,O0,OOO/ _. If, Lnuteuer, the amount of original compensation ttith rate of

\ \

MGP,J cM,4. 969 2018

interest were to exceed the sum of Rs-8,OO,0O0/tlrc compensation would be in terms of ftgureⁱⁿ excess of Rs.8,O0,O00/-. TLe idea ts to afford^the benefit of the amendmenL to the^{extentpossible.} Tluts, according to us, the matter is crystal^clear."

¶128

The applicants are also^entitled for^interest @^{7ot'" pet} annum on the compensation amount as^{per the decision of the} Honourable Supreme Court in Kamukagt a.^Union of^Inidal,. From the date of application i.e., 2O.lO.2Ol5^{to the dateof order} r.e., 14.09.2023, the applicants are entitled for^interest for⁷ years 10 months = 94 months. Thus, the applicants are entitled for the compensation along^with interest^{as men[ionedbelow:}

¶129

2a. Therefore, the interest along with the compensation amount, to which the applicants are entitled^prevailing at the time of the accident cornes to Rs.6, 19,333/-^{(Rs.4,0O,OOO/-+} Rs.2,19,333/-).

¶130

rCN'AppealNo.3799of2023(ArisingourotSI-P(C) No. 17062 /20221decided on 16.05.2023

MGP..' cMA 969 2018

I (

I t

However, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Radho. Yadav's case (supra), if, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.S,OO ,OOO I -, which u,as brought in by u,ay of latest amendment, the applicants u.ould be enti[led to Rs.8,OO,OOO I -. lf , however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,OO,O00/-, the compensation u,ould be in [erms of figure in excess of Rs.8,OO,O0O/-. In the instant case, the final figure comes to Rs.6,19,333/-. Therefore, the applican[s are entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,0O,000/-.

¶137

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order dated 22.04.2019 in OAA No.236 of 2Ot6 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad is set aside and thereby compensation of Rs.8,OO,OOO/- is awarded to the applicants. 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, all the applicants are entitled to equal shares without furnishing any security. No order as to costs.

MGP,J cMA S69 2018

,.<br>

Pending^{Miscellaneous applications,if any' shalt stand closed}

¶142

¶143

¶144

SO/- B.S. CHIRANJEEVI, JOINT REGISTRAR.

¶145