Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1360 (AP)

Jalem Lakshmi v. Union of India

2023-09-29

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 5/7/2019 passed in OA/II/u/140 of 2010 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. Heard Smt. N. S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Jupudi V. K. Yagnadutt appearing for the respondents. 3. The claim of appellant/applicant before the Tribunal is that the application has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the respondent Railway administration for payment of compensation for the death of her son as a result of an untoward incident. The claim of the appellant is that one Jalem Ramesh (hereinafter referred to "the deceased")went to Rajahmundry one day prior to the incident and stayed there on that night. During his return journey, the deceased along with brother-in-law K Venkata Ramana went to Rajahmundry Railway station in the morning hours of 6/4/2010 and his brother-in-law purchased one 2nd class train journey ticket for the deceased from Rajahmundry to Tuni and the deceased boarded train No.7487 Tirupati-Visakhapatnam Tirumala Exp. In a second class general compartment by holding the said ticket. During the course of his journey, the deceased J. Ramesh slipped and fell down accidentally from the said train at KM No.679/2-4 in between Hamsavaram and Tuni Railway stations due to speed, jerks and jolts. As a result, he sustained severe head injury and other multiple fractures and died on the spot on the same day morning hours of 6/4/2010. 4. The respondent filed its written statement and denied all the allegations made in the claim application and stated that no train journey ticket was found from the body of the deceased at the time of Inquest. As such the claim does not fall within the ambit of Sec. 123 (c ) read with Sec. 124A of the Railways Act 1989. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) of the deceased? ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of untoward incident? iii) Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to claim the compensation as prayed for and to what relief? 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) of the deceased? ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of untoward incident? iii) Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to claim the compensation as prayed for and to what relief? 6. During course of the trial, on behalf of the applicants AW.1 and AW.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 to RW.3 were examined and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked. 7. Basing on the facts and circumstances, attending circumstances and preponderance of evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed. 8. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of Tribunal is contrary to law and contrary to facts of the case and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the death of the deceased was not due to an untoward incident. The Tribunal adopted a very narrow approach in this matter. The act is beneficial piece of legislation. He further submits that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on erroneous appreciation of the evidence and material on record. 9. To support her contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kamukayi & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors., Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023 wherein it was held that: This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. Versus Union of India and Ors., Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023 wherein it was held that: This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India3 and the judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India4, Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India5 and also considered the judgement of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India6 and in para 29 concluded as thus- "We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for 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 which 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828 (2019) 12 SCC 391 can be 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." 10. Learned counsel of the appellant while relying on the above decision submits that in absence of any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the there is no train journey ticket even from the body of the deceased at the time of inquest and as such the claim does not fall within the ambit of Sec. 123(c ) read with 124A of the Railways Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. As seen from the impugned order, it is observed that no train journey ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased or from the vicinity of the place of occurrence during inquest. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. As seen from the impugned order, it is observed that no train journey ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased or from the vicinity of the place of occurrence during inquest. Further, it is observed that, RW.2 in his cross examination stated that after enquiring four persons, he came to a conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. This has also been averred by HC/RPF deposed before the Court as RW.3. Therefore, the tribunal did not convince with the claim of the applicant that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the said train. It is also observed that there is no eye witness to the incident. The dead body of the deceased was found lying at KM No.679/2-4 between Hamsavaram and Tuni Railway stations at about 08.15 hrs on 6/4/2010 and it was first noticed by the on duty Keyman. By that time the train No.7487 had not entered this Sec. as, according to the Guard Journal -Ex.R1, the said train passed through Hamsavaram to 08.26 hrs and reached Tuni at 08.33 hrs. further, the PME report recorded the time of death as "more than 72 hrs prior the P.M Examination", and the Post Mortem commenced at 12.00 hrs of 7/4/2010. hence the tribunal came to a conclusion that the applicant has failed to prove her case of alleged accidental falling of the deceased from the said train No.7487. 13. On perusing the entire material available on record, this Court observed that, it is an admitted fact that the deceased did not possess railway journey ticket. AW.2, who is brother-in-law of the deceased has stated during his cross examination that he did not know the train number. However, in his affidavit he has clearly mentioned the train number of the train by which the deceased, according to the applicant, travelled. 14. As seen from the Inquest report, it was mentioned at Sl.No.IX as "it appears that the deceased slipped and fell down from an unknown Down Train sustained severe injuries and death occurred". However, in his affidavit he has clearly mentioned the train number of the train by which the deceased, according to the applicant, travelled. 14. As seen from the Inquest report, it was mentioned at Sl.No.IX as "it appears that the deceased slipped and fell down from an unknown Down Train sustained severe injuries and death occurred". And at Sl.No.XV it was mentioned that "as per the first information, observation of place of offence, state of the corpse, evidence given by the Witnesses, inquiries on the deceased, our panchayatdars unanimously opine that on the morning of 6/4/2010 before 11.00 hrs the deceased while travelling in an unkown train, accidentally he slipped and fell down from the door of the train between Hamsavaram-Tyni RSs, sustained injuries and he might have died." 15. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Sec. 123 (c )(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the accident falling of any passenger from a train carrying passers, reads as under: Sec. 123 in The Railways Act, 1989 123. Definitions.-In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in Sec. 124; (b) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:- (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger. 25 [(c) "untoward incident" means- (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of subsec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 16. 16. On one hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the railway ticket was lost during the accident, and the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid journey ticket. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that no railway ticket was found on the body of the deceased. 17. In a case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, ( AIR 2018 SC 2362 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, on the burden of proof, which emphasized that any person found dead or injured on railway premises is presumed to be a bona fide passenger unless the railway administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse. 18. In the light of judgment of UOI v. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "because death is proved due to outcome of untoward incident of the deceased being a bona fide passenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded." 19. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the material available on record and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Kamukayi's case (supra 1), it is observed that the respondents are failed to establish that whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not, as the burden lies on the respondent authorities and hence the railway administration is liable to pay the adequate compensation. Therefore, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the considered opinion that while setting aside the impugned judgment, inclined to allow the present appeal. 20. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dtd. 5/7/2019 passed in OA/II/u/140 of 2010 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur, is hereby set aside. The appellant was awarded compensation of Rs.8, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of filing the petition until its realization. The respondent, Union of India, is directed to pay the compensation amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.