S. KRUPAVATHI v. UNION OF INDIA

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay in 55 days in filing the appeal else the petitioner would suffer great hardships and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent:

1. MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA No.8 of 2020 J U D G M E N T: Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur (for brevity, „the Tribunal‟), in OA II(u) No.264 of 2012, dated 02.08.2019, the applicants have preferred the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The deceased, along with his eldest daughter, Smt. Uma Devi, went to Narsapur Railway Station in the early hours of 28.11.2011. They purchased a journey ticket for two persons to travel from Narsapur to Guntur and boarded Train No.57382 Narsapur–Guntur Passenger in a general coach. While travelling, due to heavy rush in the coach, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at K.28/8-9, between Narsapur and Palakollu Railway Stations. He sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. It is the case of the applicants that the combined journey ticket was lost in the accident, as the deceased was dragged by the train. Hence, the claim petition.

4. The respondent–Railway Administration filed a written statement opposing the claim. The respondent denied all the averments made in the claim application and specifically contended that the death of the deceased was not on account of an “untoward incident.” It was further contended that no 4 VS,J CMA No.8 of 2020 journey ticket was found in the possession of the deceased, though currency note of Rs.300/- was found by the side of the deceased. According to the respondent, the incident was not an accidental fall from the train but a suspicious death. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?

3. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

6. During enquiry, the Appellant No.2, who is daughter of the deceased was examined as AW-1 on behalf of Appellants, the documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A8. On behalf of the Respondent, none was examined and marked the Report of the Divisional Railway Manager as Ex.R1.

7. The learned Tribunal after hearing on both sides, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bonafide passenger has dismissed the Claim Application. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed.

8. Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent. 5 VS,J CMA No.8 of 2020

9. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellants would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and also the deceased has not sustained injuries nor died due to an untoward incident. The learned tribunal without appreciating applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act, simply dismissed the claim of the appellant. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.

10. Learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent would contend that the deceased was not possessing valid railway journey ticket at the time of untoward incident. Therefore he cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. The claim is not fall under Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The DRM report confirms that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he did not die in an untoward incident. Therefore there is no fault or lapse on the part of the railways in the alleged mishap; the Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the Appellants herein. The learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim made by the Appellants after considering the submissions of Respondent. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed.

11. Perused the record.

12. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that Mr.B.Appala Raju/Gangman in his statement categorically stated that on

28.11.2011, while he was performing Keyman duty on the railway track between Narasapur-Palakollu stations at about 6.10 hours, he found a male 6 VS,J CMA No.8 of 2020 dead body, cut into pieces, lying on the tract at KM No.28/8-9 and informed the same to duty Station Master, Narasapur for necessary action. This fact is a part of DRM Report i.e Ex.R1. Therefore, death of the deceased is not in dispute.

13. Learned counsel for the Appellants further stated that this matter is squarely covered by an order of Court order dated 29.09.2023 passed in C.M.A.No. 17 of 2020, wherein this court following the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Kamukayi & Ors. V. Union of India and Ors” 1, wherein it was held as follows: “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 analyzing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India and the judgments of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India and also considered the judgment 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.” 1 Civil A ppeal No.3799 of 2023 7 VS,J CMA No.8 of 2020

14. In Rina Devi’s case cited supra, 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.

15. In the instant case, the burden of proof shifts on the Respondent/ Railways, as the Appellants proved the death of the deceased while travelling in train by marking Ex.A1: copy of the FIR and Ex.A7: Final Report. None was examined on behalf of the Respondents to rebut the evidence of the Applicants, except marking of Report of Divisional Railway Manager. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the deceased was dead during travel in train.

16. In the light of judgment of “Union of India v. Radha Yadav2 ”, 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.”

17. During hearing, learned counsel for the Appellants drawn the attention of this Court with regard to Section 123 and also 25 (c) of the Railway Act, 1989, which deals “untoward incident”, which reproduced hereunder: 2 (2019) 3 SCC 410 8 VS,J CMA No.8 of 2020 Section 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 section 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 subsection (1) of section 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. 9 VS,J CMA No.8 of 2020

18. 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), it can be observed that the Respondent is failed to establish as to whether the deceased is not a bona fide passenger. Claimants have discharged their burden by filing an affidavit with relevant facts, hence the burden shifts on the Railways. The amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries as per the schedules in Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016.

19. Coming to the interest part is concerned, learned counsel for the Respondent relied on Common Order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.1074 of 2018, wherein this Court at Para 8 was held as follows: “ However, in a subsequent Judgment referred above, the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the payment of interest and payment of enhanced compensation, was pleased to observe that: In case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs. 4,00,000/-. If after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs. 8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claim would be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/-. If however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-, the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment to the extent possible”. 10 VS,J CMA No.8 of 2020

20. In view of the aforesaid order, the claim is restricted to Rs. 8,00,000/- only. The amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries to the Applicants is as per the schedule in Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016.

21. Following the decisions cited supra, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The impugned judgment dated 02.08.2019 passed in OA II(u)/No.264 of 2012 by the learned tribunal, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) from the Respondent. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the said compensation amount in equal shares.

22. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. It is made clear that the respondent, Union of India, is directed to pay the compensation as stated supra 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 18.03.2026 KGR