Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 294 (TS)

Jampala Kamalamma v. Union Of India

2022-04-12

G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the orders in O.A. II (U) No.40 of 2008, dated 20.09.2016 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench. 2. The applicants are the wife and children of Jampala Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who died on 23.04.2007 in an alleged untoward railway accident. They filed the O.A. before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that on 23.04.2007, the deceased went to Khammam railway station along with his son-in-law and after purchasing the journey ticket, boarded the passenger train to travel from Khammam to Bhadrachalam. After some time, the deceased informed his son-in-law that he wanted to attend nature call, went to bath room and did not turn up. The son-in-law of the deceased enquired about the deceased at Dornakal railway station and he was under an impression that the deceased might have boarded in another compartment. Even at Kothagudem, he could not find the deceased, and later, came to know about the incident. On the next day i.e. on 24.04.2007, it was published in the newspaper that an old male person died in the surroundings of Khammam railway station. Reading the said news, they identified the dead body as that of the deceased and later attended the formalities. 4. The respondent filed a detailed written statement before the Tribunal contending that the deceased was not holding any journey ticket and further stated that mere lying of the dead body by the side of the tracks cannot by itself prove the death of the deceased in an untoward incident. 5. On behalf of appellants/applicants, Exs.A-1 to A-8 i.e. FIR, inquest report, PME report, original ticket, case diary-part II, statements of witnesses, Family member certificate and death certificate respectively, are marked. On behalf of respondents, RWs.1 and 2 are examined and the original message book and the copy of the message book are marked as Exs.R-1 and R-2 respectively. 6. The Tribunal have framed three issues as to whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased, whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger of the train who travelled from Khammam to Bhadrachalam on 23.04.2007, whether the death of the deceased is as a result of accidental fall or not and also about the entitlement of applicants to compensation. 7. 7. Heard learned counsel for appellants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondent-railways and perused the record. 8. On perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is evident that the tribunal has dismissed the claim of the applicants on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and he did not suffer any untoward incident, therefore, the question of awarding compensation to the claimants does not arise. The trial Court has relied on Exs.R-1 and R-2, which are original message book and the copy of the message book dated 23.04.2007 and also relied on the evidence of RWs.1 and 2. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for appellants that the Tribunal has wrongly opined that the journey ticket might have been planted as applicant No.2, who is the son of the deceased, was a Constable in RPS at Warangal, therefore, there is every chance/possibility for him to plant the journey ticket. 10. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the incident. The chief affidavit of AW-1 is nothing but reiteration of the facts in the claim petition. In the cross-examination, AW-1 who is the son of the deceased, admitted that his brother-in-law M.Venkateswarlu who accompanied the deceased, telephoned them and stated that they will come down to Kothagudem and later he was informed about the missing of his father. It is also admitted by AW-1 that at the time of inquest, the original journey ticket was not available with the deceased and they came to know about the death of their father on 24.04.2007 only, after going through the newspaper clipping. Ex.A-1/FIR and Ex.A-2/Inquest Report are silent as far as the journey ticket is concerned which is Ex.A-4. 11. The evidence of RW-1 disclose that on 23.04.2007, while he was on duty from 10.00 hours to 14.00 hours checking the traction wires and the connected poles between Mallemadugu and Papatapally, at about 12.00 Noon, he noticed one unknown dead body aged 65 years lying at K.M.472/17-15 upline and informed the same to SS/Papatapally, who was on duty. The evidence of RW-2 disclose that on 23.04.2007, while he was on duty at Khammam railway station at about 12 Noon, he received a telephonic message from Sri B.Hari Ram, SS/PPY that one unknown male dead body aged about 65 years was lying on the track which was observed by RW-1. The evidence of RW-2 disclose that on 23.04.2007, while he was on duty at Khammam railway station at about 12 Noon, he received a telephonic message from Sri B.Hari Ram, SS/PPY that one unknown male dead body aged about 65 years was lying on the track which was observed by RW-1. The copy of the message was marked as Ex.R-2 and the original message book was marked as Ex.R-1. 12. Admittedly, basing on the message received by RW-1 about the unidentified dead body, the respondents have issued a paper publication and on identification of the deceased as that of the husband of the 1st appellant, they approached the Police. Admittedly, the inquest was done on 23.04.2007 and the paper publication was made on 24.04.2007 i.e. one day prior to identification of the dead body by their blood relatives. Therefore, Exs.A-1 and A-2 are the documents dated 23.04.2007, on which date, the deceased alleged to have travelled on the train, and hence, those documents are silent as to the name of the deceased or about the blood relatives of the deceased. Therefore, the question of giving the statements by the appellants during the course of inquest would not arise. The postmortem report/Ex.A-3 disclose that the deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock due to heady injury and multiple injuries to vital organs. Ex.A-5 is the statement of AW-1, which was recorded by the Police on 24.04.2007 i.e. one day after the death of the deceased. The said statement of AW-1 clearly disclose about the deceased travelling along with one Venkateswarlu in the train after purchasing the journey ticket, the said Venkateswarlu informing about the missing of the deceased on the train and their coming to know about the death of the deceased through newspapers. Ex.A-6 is the statement of Mr. M.Venkateswarlu, who alleged to have travelled along with the deceased. It clearly disclose that he travelled with the deceased on 23.04.2007 and the deceased informed him that he was going to toilet and later not found. On the next day, they came to know about the unidentified dead body of the deceased, through news paper. 13. Admittedly, the Divisional Railway Manager’s report was not placed before the Tribunal for the reasons best known to the respondent-Railways. There is not an iota of evidence about the investigations done by the railway police in this case, to falsify the claim of the applicants. 13. Admittedly, the Divisional Railway Manager’s report was not placed before the Tribunal for the reasons best known to the respondent-Railways. There is not an iota of evidence about the investigations done by the railway police in this case, to falsify the claim of the applicants. 14. The learned counsel for appellants has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo & another v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway, 2018 ACJ 1460 . Para 3 of the said judgment reads as under : “3. Though rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) mandates the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident., admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before the RCT on 27.2.2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23.4.2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased detrained from themoving train of D Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railway was accepted by the RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal, i.e., FAO No.535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of the RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same by cryptic and non-speaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award and the reasons assigned in support of the same do not warrant any interference.” 15. The learned counsel for appellants has also relied on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India v. A. Geetha & others, 2018 ACJ 941 . Paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment read as under : “12. The pleadings of the applicants in the original application disclose that Smt. Sandhya was travelling alone in the train. Her bag containing material things including the ticket taken by her for travelling purpose was lost. Her body was found lying in the railway track. It is pertinent to note that even though disclosure of the facts is made in the original application, the respondent has not ventured to controvert those. Her bag containing material things including the ticket taken by her for travelling purpose was lost. Her body was found lying in the railway track. It is pertinent to note that even though disclosure of the facts is made in the original application, the respondent has not ventured to controvert those. The respondent has also no case that any enquiry in the matter was conducted by them and the contrary was revealed to them. The only objection raised was regarding the non-pulling of the chain by co-passengers and non-production of the ticket by the claimants. The lady being a passenger not in accompaniment with any of the original applicants, it is difficult for the latter to state specifically about the incident. The attending circumstances being so, the authorities of the Railway, being in reachable space to the place of incident, are the appropriate person to conduct an enquiry and to get convinced themselves about the untoward incident rather than the original applicants, who were in a remote place at the relevant time. The authorities of the railway cannot take advantage of their inaction to conduct an enquiry and the incapacity of the original applicants to place on record evidence supporting their claim. In the case on hand, the attending circumstances drawn out from the pleadings of the original applicants are leaning in favour of the original applicants rather than those advanced by the respondent. 13. The dictum in the decision supra rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one among us, was a constituent member, is also relevant in the context and is extracted hereinbelow:— “8. We have considered all the relevant inputs. To us it appears that Chap.13 of the Railways Act reflects the vibrant compassion of the legislature in favour of the victims of untoward incidents that take place during the operation of the Railways. Even though there is no specific liability known to law on established legal principles obliging the railways to compensate the victim of such untoward incidents, law declares that Railways shall compensate the victims. More than enforcement of a legal right, the statutory provision recognizes compassion and concern which the Railway administration must show to the unfortunate victims of the untoward incidents. More than enforcement of a legal right, the statutory provision recognizes compassion and concern which the Railway administration must show to the unfortunate victims of the untoward incidents. An anxious perusal of the relevant statutory provisions and the rules must convince that the framers of the statute and the rules did not reckon the proceedings as an adversarial litigative process at all. If there be any semblance of doubt on this aspect it will be appropriate to frequent oneself with the stipulations of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2007). R.7 to 10 clearly show that the burden is on the local police and the officers of the force to conduct an enquiry/investigation into the cause of the incident and come to appropriate conclusion. To us it appears that the provisions clearly reveal due recognition and acceptance of the helplessness of the claimants who may be far far away from the scene/venue of the incident and consequentially incapable of adducing very compelling evidence in support of their claim. The realistic acceptance of the plight of the victims is perfectly clear from the mechanism stipulated for enquiry/investigation under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. The burden really is not placed entirely on the shoulders of the victims or claimants. But, the burden is placed on the shoulders of the Railway and its officials to conduct a proper enquiry to ascertain whether claimants are really entitled to amounts or not.” 16. Both the aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for compensation. 17. Though the appellants have claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- only, as per the Schedule given by the Ministry of Railways vide Notification dated 22nd December, 2016, the Railways are liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of its passengers. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of deceased Jampala Venkateswarlu. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 20.09.2016, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II (U) No.40 of 2008, is hereby set aside. The respondent-Railways shall pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 19. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 20.09.2016, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II (U) No.40 of 2008, is hereby set aside. The respondent-Railways shall pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 19. Out of the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, the first appellant being the wife of the deceased, is entitled for Rs.3,00,000/-, appellant Nos.2 to 5 being the children of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.1,25,000/- each. All the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation. 20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.