The Union of India v. Smt. B. Mohini

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 11.08.2009, in O.A.A.No.390 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application, filed under Sections 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with 124-A and 125 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of the

husband of the respondent herein, was allowed.

The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 13.06.2003, B. Appanna (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’), purchased a ticket bearing No.21234221 and was travelling train No.7487, Tirumala Express from Tirupati Visakhapatnam. On 14.06.2003, while he was travelling in the said train, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train between Narasingapalli and Bayyavaram Stations, sustained injuries and died on the spot. On 15.06.2003 at about 11:43 A.M., the dead body of the deceased was found lying between two tracks by the keyman. Basing on the report given by the Deputy Station Superintendent, police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination. Hence, the claim petition.

The respondent - railways filed the written statement rejecting the claim on the ground that the train passed the death spot between 09:21 A.M. and 09:27 A.M. on 14.06.2003, and if someone had fallen from the train, there would have been commotion by the passengers, which had not happened. The guard did not notice any untoward incident and that on 15.06.2003 in the morning hours, the dead body of the deceased was found lying between two tracks by the keyman. Therefore, the deceased could not have fallen accidentally from the said train. Hence, the respondent – railways prays to dismiss the claim petition.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona passenger of the train Tirumala Express, travelling from Tirupati to Visakhapatnam, on 13.06.2003?

3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of fall from the train? and 4. To what relief?”

To substantiate the case of the applicant, AW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were got marked. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex. R1 was got marked.

After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the moving train and died in an untoward incident and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways.

Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper?

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that there is no evidence to show that from which train the deceased had fallen; that therefore, the deceased is not a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train; that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that at the time of holding inquest on the dead body of the deceased, police seized the ticket from the dead body of the deceased, which would go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train; that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

The death of the deceased is not in dispute. The keyman found the dead body of the deceased by the side of the track at Km.731/21- 23 between Narsipatnam and Bayyavaram Railway Stations. Police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and seized a valid ticket to travel in train bearing No.7487, Tirumala Express from Tirupati to Vishakapatnam from the dead body of the deceased. The ticket from Tirupati to Visakhapatnam was purchased on 13.06.2003 at about 18:06 hours. No doubt, RW.2 did not state from which train the deceased had fallen down. But, Ex.A-9, final report of the police, would clearly go to show that the deceased must have fallen down accidentally from Tirumala Express. The inquest report shows that the deceased after visiting Tirupati must have been returning Visakhapatnam by Tirumala Express. The post-mortem report shows that the deceased died as a result of head injury and it is not a case of suicide. Admittedly, police seized the ticket from the dead body of the deceased, which would clearly indicate that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in Tirumala Express. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased died in an untoward incident. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.