The High Court · 2025

THE HOI{'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CML MISCELLANEoUS APPEAL No.153 ()F 2014 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order, dated 05.O4.2012, 1n O.A.A.No. 176 of 2005 passed b1, the Raiirvay Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad, the present Civil Misceilancous Appeal is filed.

2. There rs no representation on behall of the appellant. Heard lcarne:d counsei lor rhc respondent. Matter leltarns to the year 2014, no furthcr adjournments can be eranted, this Court is inclined to pass order or-r merits.

3. The appellant/applicant filed a claim application under Section I 6 of the Railvzav Claims Tribunal Act. 1987 read witlr provisions of Sections 124 A and 125 of the Indian Rail',vays Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from respon,lent organization for the death of her husband On 10.03.2005, thc appellant's husband accidentally fell from train Nc.356 passenger train at Tandur railway stati<-rn, while he u,as going to Nau,andgi (for Bashirabad) and was seriously injured. He was shifted to Osmar-Lia General 2 ,]AK.J - Hospital and rvas treated for the injuries sustained. He died on 15.03.2005. The railway police, Vikarabad registered a case, conducted the panchanamma and postmortem. Appellant is a dependant.

4. It is submitted that the evidence of AW1 and Exs.A1 to

4.6 ought to have been considered while deciding the O.A.A.No.176 ol 2005. It is further pleaded that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the O.A.A. on the ground that appellant did not implead her t',vo sons arld three daughters.

5. Counter affidavit is filecl by Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, South Centra-l Railway, Secunderabad. It is averred in the counter affidavit that appellant's husband (deceased) was not a bonalide passenger, no ticket was found (with him) and the appellant/applicant failed to prove that she is the legal heir of the deceased. It is further averred that appellant/ applicant failed to implead her children and has not produced any documents to prove that she is the wife of the deceased. It is further stated that reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court, dated 09.03.2006, passed ln CMA.No.2O4 ol 2006 and stated that unless, the issue of dependency is proved alter blirring ail LR's on record, it is oniy then the Tribunal should go into other issr.rt:s. 6- Perused the reco:d, ct,l-isidercci the submissicr-rs.

7. On 1C.03.20C5, appeilzrnt's husband/dcceased \\IAS travelling ii'otr Tandur 'r-o lriau,arclgi iBashirabaC), he haC a fa-l1 from 35(; passenger' '.rain, lic rvas serioush' injure<i anci shilieC to Osmania General Hospital. Appellant's SOn '!va-S attending the deceased at thc hospital, on l.r.t)3.2005, he passed anval'. A telr-rgu r.rlitten complaint w,as krdgcd by his son, it was received on 16.03.2O05, through Railu'ay Police Constable (RPC), by Raih.r,ay Police, Tandur rvhich was forwarded by Railway Head Constable 155. Elatsing on the complaint, an PIR bearing No.OO 14 of 2005, dated

16.03.2005, came to be registered at Raih,r,ay Police Station, Vikarabad (Secunderabad District). In the FIR it is reflected at column 5 that the appellant's husbirnd/deceased sustained injuries at Southern Central Railwa,, Station and expired at Osmania General Hospital. B. In the s'ritten statement filed before the Railway Claims Tribuna-l, paragraph No.6 is reflected as follou,s .- l "As per the version ol the applicant while the deceased was travelling from Tandur to Nawandgi, he fell from the train and injured and later died in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on 15.03.2005 whilc undcrgoing trcatment. In . fact there is no eye witncss to thc fall. Some passengers informed about the allcged lall to the station Superintendent Tandur. Thc FIR is lodged by the son of the deceased but not thc Railway staff. It appea-rs that the deceascd fell down not in the station premises but beyond the station. The dcceascd might havc trcspassed the track or died othcrwisc. The applicant did not rcveal any details in thc OAA that s.ho joincd the deceased in the Hospital whcn injurcd, and who are present at the time of the alleged incid<:nt. Since the FIR is lodged by the son of thc dcccased instead of Station Superintendent, it appears that hc did not inform the incidcnt to Statlon Supcrintendent. If the incident happencd in thc Station, it cannot go un- noticed by the Station Supcrintcndent at oncc since Tandur is not a big Junction Station."

9. Tribunal examined the applicant as AWl and one Mr. Rajan Kutti was examined as RWl, Exs.Al to ,46 were marked on behalf of the applicant, Exs.Ri and R2 were marked on behalf of the respondent. The postmortem report IS annexed at page No.57 of the material papers and the cause of death is reflected as "Traumatic Amputation of Lower 1/3ra of Right Leg". In the linal report under Section ---.-. 5 173 Cr.P.C submitted by Sub Inspector of Railway Police, Vikarabad, the following is scripted: "The facts of the case arc that on 10.O3.2O05 Dy.SS. TDU issued a memo that onc unknown male pr:rson aged about 5O years fallen dou,n from 356 pzrssenger train and right leg was out, as informed by passengers, the said injured has been shifted by RPC i26 of ROP Tandur to Gbvernment Hospital for treatment later he has relerrcd to OGH Hyderabad. During the treatmcnt on 16.03.2005 at 8:15 nigl-rt he was expircd in thc OGH Hyder:rbacl, as per doctor intimation the son of clcccased B.Narasimlu gave a complaint on 16.03.20c)J at 8:30 hours for taking neccssary action. On receipt of the above death intimatr()n, a case in crime no. 14/05 under Section 17 4 of Cr.P.C has been registered by HC 165 and investigation entrusted to HC 155 of ROP Tandur. Dr-iring the course of investigation, HC I 55 visited the OGH Hyderabad and examrned the witnesses and recorded their statements in detail in part Il CD of the date, held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators as mention( d in 001.No. 1(a) of the inquest report and subjected the body for autopsy to OGH Hyderabad s,here Dr.B.Lakshmi Prasana conducted P.M.E vide No.814/2005 after that handed over the dead l>ody to the blood relatives for last rites. Strbsequently on O4.O4.2OO5 I took up the CD file liom HC 155 and verified the investigation done by the HC and found on propcr lines. I zrlso reexamined the witness and thcy stated thc s.r me facts as stated before the HC 155, thcre rs no variation s in their statements, I obtaincd thc t'ME 6 - report in which the MO has opined the cause of death is due to TRAUMATIC AMPUTATION OF LOWER 1/3RD OF RIGHT LEG. From the facts and evidence collected so far in this case it is revealed that the deceased while bordering the train No.356 passenger at Tandur Station. On 10.08.2005 accidentlv fallen down and his left leg was out off and seriousiy injured and while undergoing treatme nt died on 15.O3.2OO5 in OGH Hyderabad. The deceased was having train ticket with him and therc is no foul play is suspected in the death of the deceased. As such the case has been refel'red as accidental death, the Honble Court is prayed that the case may please be trealed accordingly and issue further proceedings after due enquiry. Hence, the final rcport. "

10. In the cross exarnination of RW1, the following 1S elicited: "lt is true that I dicl not witness the fall of the deceased. He did not speak to me though he was conscious. I noticed the injuries, his one leg was cut and blood was oozing or-rt. I did not notice any other injury. I checked only his upper shirt pocket and found no ticket. I did not check his pants pocket." 1 1. In the cross examination of RW 1, it is elicited that RW 1 has only searched upper shirt pocket of the deceased but not other pockets and has come to the conciusion that deceased l was without a ticket. It is observed that deceasecl has lost his right leg in the accident ald this fact is evident in the report filed by Sub Inspector of Railway Police. L2. The tribur.ral in its order, dated 05.04.2012, on the basis of pleadings, framed the follovving issues: "1. Whether the applicants are depenclenls of the deceased ?

2. Whether the deceascd was a bonzLfidc passenger of train No.356 passenger, travt'[ing lrom Tandur to Nawandgi on.10.03.20O5 ?

3. Whether the deceased died as a reslrlt of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train ?

4. Whether the applicants a-re entitled to claim compe nsation of Rs.4,00,000/-

5. To what relief ?"

13. Except discussing issue No.1 there are no iinciings or reasonings ar-rived at by the tribunai i4. On a reading of the order of the Tribunal, it is apparent that, the cross examination ol RWi, final report, FIR and the complaint hal,e not been considered by the tribunal I 1 8 1 5. When evidence is there on record and if the tribtnal lails to consider it and arrives at a finding, it wiltr lead to miscarriage of justice, in other words, the tribunal which is a fact finding authority has misdirected itself in ail its eagerness to thwart the claim of appellant, without appreciating the evidence on record.

16. It may be true that the applicant has not roped in the dependants of the deceased on record, but, the 'I'ribunal is cxpected to deal with other issues at hand. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again reiterated that, orders bereft of reasons, cannot be said to be valid orders

17. Perused the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that the tribuna-l has not considered the evidence on record and misdirected itself in concluding that the application filed seeking compensation cannot be sustained in lau'. Railway tribunal has not considered the evidence which ought to have been considered, order is bereft of reasons

18. For reasons aforesaid, this Court deems it appropriate that the matter be remanded bacl< to the tribunal for fresh consideration, tribunal to prr-Ss a reasoned order within a g '.l^ ./ period of four (04) rveeks from the date of receipl. of a copy of this order. The tribur-ral sha-ll not be influencecl by any of the observations recorded herein.

19. Accordingly, the Civii Miscellaleous Appt-'al is allou'ed. No order as to costs. Miscellancous applications pending, if any, sirail stand closed. SD/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To 1 2 3 4 The Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad records ) One CC to SRt B. PARAMESEWARA RAO, Advocate tOpUCI One CC to SRT KALVALA SANJEEV, Advocare [OPUC] Two CD Copies (with kLrl/l'S I- s- HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/2025 JfiIX;MENI' CMA.No.153 of 2O1tl AI_I.OWINC ltIll ( \1 \ \\ I iltoti t cost's v J ')/ l:i. lrtE .) 0rw 6 )* 3 SPA ICHL9