Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 725 (AP)

R. DECAMMA v. G. M. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

2010-08-05

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2010
JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is preferred against the order, dated 22.01.2002 passed by Secunderabad Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A.A.No.288 of 1999. The appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal stating that Sri R.Lolanaik, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3, was resident of Tanda of Ramagiri Village, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapur District and that in the first week of September 1999, he went to Rajampet on a family work. It is stated that on 13.09.1999, he boarded the Chennai – Dadar Express at Rajampet by purchasing a ticket up to Guntakal and on the way, he fell down near Gooty Railway Station on account of heavy jerk and came under the wheels. His two legs are said to have been cut and when he was being shifted to the Government Hospital by the Railway Staff, he died on the way. The appellants prayed for award of compensation. 2. The respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It was pleaded that though the deceased was a bona fide passenger, he died on account of his own negligence. According to it, the deceased made an attempt to get down the train after it passed through Gooty Railway Station and in the process, came under the wheels. The allegation that the fall of the deceased was on account of the jerk was denied. Further details were furnished. The information as to the incident was given by the Keyman to the Station Master, Gooty, who, in turn, informed the Railway Police. Crime No.41 of 1999 was registered and when the Police were shifting the injured person to the Hospital, he died on the way. It was also alleged that there was no stop for the train at Gooty Railway Station. 3. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A.A. on finding that the death occurred on account of the attempt made by the deceased to get down the moving Train. 4. Sri K.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that except the uncorroborated statements of the respondent and its officials, there is no reliable evidence to disclose that the deceased made an attempt to get down from the moving train. 4. Sri K.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that except the uncorroborated statements of the respondent and its officials, there is no reliable evidence to disclose that the deceased made an attempt to get down from the moving train. He contends that the view taken by the Tribunal that the deceased was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 124-A of the Railways Act (for short ‘the Act’) would only reflect the perversity with which the matter was examined. 5. Sri B.H.R.Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of the deceased, when shifting him to the Hospital, deposed as C.W.1 and he categorically stated that the deceased himself informed him that the incident occurred when he tried to get down the train when it was slow. He submits that the very attempt made by the deceased to get down from the train, since there was no stop at Gooty Railway Station, constitutes contributory negligence and the Tribunal has taken the correct view of the matter. 6. There is no dispute as to the relationship of the appellants with the deceased or that he was a bona fide passenger. Even according to the respondent, the deceased purchased a ticket from Rajampet to Guntakal and was travelling in the train. The whole controversy is as to whether the deceased died on account of an untoward incident as defined under the Act or due to his negligence. 7. There was no eye witness to the incident. The first man, who noticed the deceased in an injured form, was the Keyman. It is on the information given by the Keyman that the Station Master intimated the matter to the Railway Police and C.W.1 has registered the Crime. In the ordinary course, when a bona fide passenger suffers injuries or dies in the course of travel, a presumption is to be drawn that it is on account of an untoward incident. It is only when the Railways plead specific facts that constitute the contributory negligence on the part of such passenger, that a different view can be taken. 8. The only basis for the respondent to plead that the deceased died on account of his attempt to get down from a moving train is the evidence of C.W.1. It is only when the Railways plead specific facts that constitute the contributory negligence on the part of such passenger, that a different view can be taken. 8. The only basis for the respondent to plead that the deceased died on account of his attempt to get down from a moving train is the evidence of C.W.1. It has already been mentioned that C.W.1 is Sub-Inspector of Police and his statement cannot be taken on its face value, unless it is corroborated by any independent witness. It was mentioned that the statement of the deceased was recorded in the presence of witnesses. However, for the reasons best known to it, the respondent did not examine such independent witnesses. It is not at all safe to rest the conclusions on the basis of the statement made by a police official to the Court. 9. Though the Keyman was said to have been examined as a witness, the Tribunal did not refer to his evidence at all. The respondent sought to buttress its contention by taking the plea that the deceased was a resident of a Village nearby Gooty. Howsoever tempting it may be to draw inference from surrounding facts, the Courts are required to be cautious when it comes to the question of implementing a provision of law, which is enacted as a social security measure. If there exists any doubt in the matters of this nature, the benefit thereof needs to be given to the injured, or dependants of the deceased. 10. The Tribunal did, not at all view the matter from the angle, in which the provision was enacted. On the other hand, its discussion centered a round the penal provision, namely Section 124-A of the Act and went to the extent of observing that the deceased was guilty of committing a crime of trespassing into the railway track. There cannot be a better instance of perversity, than this. 11. This Court is of the view that the circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he died on account of an untoward incident. The inescapable conclusion, is that the appellants are entitled to be paid the compensation which is fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- in the Act itself. So far as the interest is concerned, the Act by itself does not provide for it. The inescapable conclusion, is that the appellants are entitled to be paid the compensation which is fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- in the Act itself. So far as the interest is concerned, the Act by itself does not provide for it. It is only in the recent past, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the interest is payable from the date of application. In the instant case, the component of interest would be heavy. 12. It is represented by the learned Standing counsel for the respondents that the question of awarding interest is agitated before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) forthwith to the appellants. The interest is awarded at 6% from the date of filing of application till the date of payment. However, the respondent is granted three months time from today for payment of interest component and the necessity to pay the same would depend upon the orders that may be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. There shall be no order as to costs.