Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 642 (TS)

K. Sobha v. Union Of India

2024-09-02

G.RADHA RANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (G. Radha Rani, J.) : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants – applicants aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.11.2018 in OA II (U) 369 of 2014 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench. 2. The applicants are wife and parents of the deceased K. Chander, who was a resident of Ravinder Naik Nagar, Falaknuma, Hyderabad and was working as a coolie. The case of the applicants was that with a view to go to Shadnagar to attend a contract coolie work, the deceased K.Chander informed his wife and went to Falaknuma Railway Station in the morning hours of 07.10.2014. He purchased a passenger train ticket bearing No. C16294964 from Falaknuma to Shadnagar and boarded train No.57425 Kachiguda – Guntakal passenger in a general compartment and informed the same over cell phone to his wife about his journey by the said train. While traveling, as there was heavy rush of passengers in the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train in between platform No.3 and the railway track due to sudden jerks of the running train, when the train was leaving the platform of Falaknuma railway station. In the result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. The appellants-applicants claimed compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs for the death of the deceased in the untoward railway accident. 3. The respondent – South Central Railways filed written statement contending that the claim would not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) or Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. The deceased might have sustained the alleged death due to some other reasons, but not due to the alleged incident. An enquiry was conducted by the Senior DSE-Hyderabad into the alleged incident which revealed that train No.57425 passed through Falaknuma Station at 10.40 hours via platform No.1, whereas the dead body was found between the track and platform No.3 of the Falaknuma Station. The contention of the applicants that the deceased fell down from train No.57425 was quite impossible. It was established that the deceased had not fallen down from the train No.57425, since the time of purchasing the ticket was 10.02 hours, whereas the information received about the dead body was at 10.00 hours, which was quite impossible, as the ticket could not be issued after the incident. It was established that the deceased had not fallen down from the train No.57425, since the time of purchasing the ticket was 10.02 hours, whereas the information received about the dead body was at 10.00 hours, which was quite impossible, as the ticket could not be issued after the incident. Therefore, the incident could not be treated as an untoward incident and contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger since the ticket was purchased after the incident and prayed to dismiss the application with costs. 4. The applicant No.1 was examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 on her behalf. One RPF Constable was examined as RW.1 on behalf of the respondent - Railways and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked on their behalf. 5. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal considered that there were no eye witnesses to the accident, the deceased claimed to have fallen down from Train No.57425 passenger, but the said train came to Falaknuma Railway Station at 10.40 hours on platform No.1, whereas the dead body of the deceased was found between the track and platform No.3 of Falaknuma Railway Station as per the message of the Station Superintendent, Falaknuma, there were no any jolts or jerks to the train or no such information was received by the guard of the train about falling of a passenger at Falaknuma which was quite contradictory, as such, held that the deceased had not fallen down from train No.57425 passenger. The Tribunal also observed that the time of purchase of ticket was at 10.02 hours, whereas the information received about the dead body was about 10.00 hours, the same was quite contradictory as the ticket could not be issued after the subject incident. Hence, possession of the ticket by which the deceased was allegedly traveling was suspicious, the same was incompatible to the facts or information actually received by the Station Superintendent/Falaknuma and the actual arrival of the train at Falaknuma Station. Train No.77604/77631 Demu passenger, Ex.KCGUR arrived at Falaknuma station at 9.54 hours on platform No.3 and left at 10.00 hours. But, the claimed ticket was issued at 10.02 hours, which was quite contradictory. The DRM report was marked as Ex.R.1. No steps were taken by the applicants to disprove the conclusions arrived therein. Train No.77604/77631 Demu passenger, Ex.KCGUR arrived at Falaknuma station at 9.54 hours on platform No.3 and left at 10.00 hours. But, the claimed ticket was issued at 10.02 hours, which was quite contradictory. The DRM report was marked as Ex.R.1. No steps were taken by the applicants to disprove the conclusions arrived therein. No material was brought on record to shake the conclusions drawn by the respondent and the deposition made by RW.1 and held that the deceased was neither a bonafide passenger nor suffered an untoward incident, as such grant of compensation to the applicants would not arise and dismissed the OA. 6. Heard Ms. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellants-applicants and Sri R. Mangulal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Railways. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal had taken a very narrow minded approach while adjudicating the case. The Tribunal erroneously appreciated the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act and erred in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that he did not possess any ticket at the time of the accident and erred in holding that the death of the deceased would not fall under the definition of untoward incident. The Tribunal grossly erred in appreciating the evidence on record and discarded the prima facie documents filed by the appellants. The ticket purchased by the deceased was a general ticket and the deceased can board any train going from Falaknuma to Shadnagar. The Railway Claims Tribunal erred in coming to such a conclusion and in dismissing the OA and relied upon the judgments of this Court in CMA No.775 of 2017 dated 04.10.2023, CMA No.605 of 2019 dated 14.02.2024 and CMA No.279 of 2020 dated 17.03.2023. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – South Central Railways, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the Tribunal and contended that there was no irregularity or illegality in the judgment of the Tribunal to set aside the same. 9. Perused the record. 10. As seen from the record, the applicant No.1, wife of the deceased, filed her evidence affidavit as AW.1. She admitted that she was not an eye witness to the accident of her husband K. Chander. 9. Perused the record. 10. As seen from the record, the applicant No.1, wife of the deceased, filed her evidence affidavit as AW.1. She admitted that she was not an eye witness to the accident of her husband K. Chander. She stated that she was an illiterate, her husband was working as a coolie, with a view to go to Shadnagar to attend a contract coolie work, her husband informed her and went to Falaknuma railway station in the morning hours of 07.10.2014. He purchased a passenger train ticket bearing No.C16294964 from Falaknuma to Shadnagar and boarded train No.57425 Kachiguda-Guntakal passenger in a general compartment. While traveling, as there was heavy rush of passengers in the compartment, he slipped and fell down accidentally from the aforesaid running train in between the platform and the railway track and he sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. She further stated that some railway police came to her house along with some known people and informed her about the accident and the death of her husband. Immediately, she along with her in-laws and some other relatives rushed to the place of occurrence and found her husband lying dead by the side of railway track. The place of occurrence was about two kilometers from her address. She stated that the railway police held inquest panchanama over the body of her husband on the same day afternoon in their presence at the place of occurrence and her statement was recorded by the Railway Police along with the statements of her parents-in-law and some other eye witnesses. She stated that the aforesaid train ticket was found therein by the railway police in the possession of her husband, the particulars of which were mentioned in the panchanama, and kept the ticket in their record. On enquiry, the railway police concluded that her husband slipped and fell down accidentally from a running train and succumbed to the injuries. She stated that after completion of panchanama, PME and other formalities, the corpse was handed over to them and they completed the last rites. The original train journey ticket No.C16294964 from Falaknuma to Shadnagar dated 07.10.2014 was marked as Ex.A1. The attested copy of FIR in Crime No.298 of 2014 issued by the GRP, Kacheguda along with the message was marked as Ex.A2. The original train journey ticket No.C16294964 from Falaknuma to Shadnagar dated 07.10.2014 was marked as Ex.A1. The attested copy of FIR in Crime No.298 of 2014 issued by the GRP, Kacheguda along with the message was marked as Ex.A2. As per Ex.A2, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Kacheguda lodged the report on 07.10.2014 at 10.30 hours stating that some unknown passenger informed about one unknown male passenger, aged about 23 years run over and killed on platform No.3 at Falaknuma Railway Station and the dead body was lying on platform No.3. Basing on the said telephonic message, the above case was registered as Crime No.298/14 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. by the GRP, Secunderabad and the investigation was handed over to the Railway Head Constable No.370. 11. Ex.A3 was certified copy of the inquest panchanama which would disclose that one Kaisar Ahmed gave the information to the Deputy Station Master, Kacheguda, who lodged the report and the panchanama was conducted in the presence of the family members of the deceased. It was mentioned in Column No.9 of the inquest panchanama that as seen from the place of offence, the injuries on the deceased, statements given by the witnesses, it appeared that on 07.10.2014 at 10.20 hours the deceased tried to board a moving unknown train going from Falaknuma Station to Shadnagar side, he slipped and accidentally fell down between the platform and the train, sustained severe injuries and the death occurred accidentally. Thus, as seen from Ex.A1, the ticket was purchased at 10.02 hours and as per the inquest panchanama, the deceased was first seen lying dead on platform No.3 of Falaknuma Railway Station by the witness Kaisar Ahmed on 07.10.2014 before 10.20 hours and it was stated that he tried to board an unknown train going towards Shadnagar from Falaknuma Railway Station, slipped and accidentally fell down between the platform and the track and the body was cut from the stomach and he sustained severe bleeding injuries on the back and died on the spot. Ex.A4 was the certified copy of the PME report. As seen from the PME report, the body was traumatically transected into two halves and the cause of death was due to traumatic transection of the trunk. Ex.A5 was the death certificate of the deceased K. Chander. Ex.A6 was the photocopy of the Aadhar card of the decased K. Chander. Ex.A4 was the certified copy of the PME report. As seen from the PME report, the body was traumatically transected into two halves and the cause of death was due to traumatic transection of the trunk. Ex.A5 was the death certificate of the deceased K. Chander. Ex.A6 was the photocopy of the Aadhar card of the decased K. Chander. Ex.A7 was the photocopy of the Aadhar card of applicant No.1-wife of the deceased and Exs.A8 and A9 were the photocopies of the Aadhar cards of the applicants Nos.2 and 3-parents of the deceased. There is no dispute that the applicants are the wife and parents of the deceased. 12. The only point for consideration is whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died as a result of an untoward incident? 13. The respondent-South Central Railways got examined a RPF Constable, by name, P. Srinivas Rao as RW.1. RW.1 stated that on 07.10.2014 while he was on duty from 6.00 to 14.00 hours shift, at about 10.00 hours, he received information from the Station Master, Falaknuma about an untoward incident at Falaknuma Station. On receiving the information, he along with the GRP, Kacheguda, Head Constable No.370 attended the dead body and on examination of the dead body, found a ticket bearing No.16194964 from Falaknuma to Shadnagar along with the body. The ticket was issued at 10.02 hours on 07.10.2014. The information about the untoward incident was received at 10.00 hours. He stated that the deceased had not travelled by the said train and it was quite impossible for the deceased to purchase the ticket after the incident. 14. The original DRM report was marked as Ex.R1 and the copy of his ID card was marked as Ex.R2. In his cross examination, he admitted that as per the written message, mentioned in the DRM’s report, it was issued at 10.20 hours on 07.10.2014. The DRM report was prepared on 13.12.2015. As per his statement given before the DRM, he stated that at about 10.00 AM he received the intimation. He also admitted that in the message of the Station Master, he stated that he received the message at about 10.00 hours (not exactly). He saw the GRP finding the ticket with the deceased. He stated that it was his duty to see whether the ticket was recovered from the deceased or not. He also admitted that in the message of the Station Master, he stated that he received the message at about 10.00 hours (not exactly). He saw the GRP finding the ticket with the deceased. He stated that it was his duty to see whether the ticket was recovered from the deceased or not. He stated that the investigation was done by the GRP. He admitted that the Guard Rough Journal, Train Movement and Daily Trains Cash Register was not enclosed to DRM’s report. 15. Thus, as per this witness, the ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased and the ticket was issued at 10.02 hours on 07.10.2014. The DRM’s report was marked as Ex.R1. As per the DRM’s report, Sri Kaisar Ahmed Khan received information at about 10.00 hours from unknown passengers about an unknown male person, aged about 23 years run over and killed and his body was lying on the track of platform No.3 of Falaknuma railway station and immediately he passed on the said information to the Sub-Inspector, GRP, Kachiguda at 10.20 hours on the same day for further action. It was also mentioned in DRM’s report that on that day i.e. 07.10.2014 train No.57425 passenger arrived at the platform No.1 at 10.40 hours and departed at 10.45 hours and he did not notice any person falling down from train No.57425 nor any passenger complained about run over. 16. The RPF Constable of Falaknuma was examined on 15.02.2015 and as per his statement he got information from Station Superintendent, Falaknuma about an unknown male person run over and killed and his body lying on the track of platform No.3 at Falaknuma Railway Station and on receipt of said information along with GRP/KCG HC/370, Kacheguda attended the spot and found therein ticket bearing No.161949964 dated 07.10.2014 and caused further enquiries. He stated that on that date, train No.57425 arrived at Falaknuma on platform No.1. The statement of one G. Srinivas, Passenger Guard, Kachiguda was recorded on 25.03.2015. He stated that on 07.10.2014, he worked by train No.77604/77631 Demo passenger Ex.KCG-UR. The said train arrived at Falaknuma at 9.54 hours on platform No.3 and departed at about 10.00 hours. He stated that on that day there was no untoward incident nor any passenger informed about any untoward incident at Falaknuma Railway Station or enroute nor he experienced any jerks or jolts during journey. The said train arrived at Falaknuma at 9.54 hours on platform No.3 and departed at about 10.00 hours. He stated that on that day there was no untoward incident nor any passenger informed about any untoward incident at Falaknuma Railway Station or enroute nor he experienced any jerks or jolts during journey. As per the DRM’s report, on 07.10.2014, there was only one train i.e. 77604/77631 that moved/departed from platform No.3 and moreover there was no message of run over given either by Guard or Loco Pilot on 07.10.2014. 17. Thus, the DRM’s report would disclose that one Demo passenger train No.77604.77631 arrived at platform No.3 of Falaknuma Railway Station at 9.45 hours and departed at about 10.00 hours. As the body of the deceased was found at platform No.3 in between the platform and the track, there is every likelihood of the deceased trying to board the said train, accidentally slipped and fell down from the said train and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. As it is a general ticket, the deceased could have boarded any train going from Falaknuma to Shadnagar and it is not likely that he boarded train No.57425 only. As the applicants are illiterates and were not eye witnesses to the incident, they might not have mentioned the correct train number. The same itself would not make their case unbelievable to dismiss the same holding that no untoward incident occurred. As the body of the deceased was found cut into two pieces between platform No.3 and the track and the ticket was also found with the body of the deceased, the deceased can be considered as a bonafide passenger and while trying to board the train slipped and fell down and his death was caused due to the untoward incident. The Tribunal raising doubts with regard to ticket purchased at 10.02 hours and the intimation was given at about 10.00 hours, magnifying the same and observing it as contradictory is denying the claim of the applicants on unjustifiable reasons. 18. This Court is of the considered view that the deceased had fallen down while boarding the train and died in an untoward incident and he was a bonafide passenger and the applicants being the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled for compensation from the respondent-South Central Railway. 19. 18. This Court is of the considered view that the deceased had fallen down while boarding the train and died in an untoward incident and he was a bonafide passenger and the applicants being the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled for compensation from the respondent-South Central Railway. 19. In the result, the CMA is allowed and the judgment dated 19.11.2018 in OA II (U) 369 of 2014 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench is set aside, awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimants. The respondent - Railway is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same as specified below: i) The appellant No.1-applicant No.1 is entitled for Rs.4,00,000/-; ii) the appellant No.2-applicant No.2 is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- and iii) the appellant No.3-applicant No.3 is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any shall stand closed.