General Manager v. Matta Eswaramma & Ors.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 733 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2009 in O.A.A No.153 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimants consequent upon the death of deceased Matta Sri Ramulu.

The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. are the claimants, before the Claims Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as arrayed before the Claims Tribunal.

The brief facts are that, the claimants filed the O.A.A. stating that on 03.07.2002, one Matta Sri Ramulu( hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) went to Tadepalligudem, for attending the marriage and while returning to Kadapa, the deceased purchased a ticket bearing No.1907806, at Tadepalligudem railway station and boarded train No.431 Vijayawada-Kakinada passenger; and when the train reached near Kakinada Station at 10.30 P.M., while the deceased was alighting from the train, he accidentally slipped and fell down on platform No.1, rolled under the train, sustained injuries and died on the spot.

The Railways took objection that the deceased was not a bona f i d e passenger travelling the passenger train No.431 Tadepalligudem to Kakinada, and deceased did not die in an untoward incident and the claimants are not the dependents of the deceased, hence it was prayed to dismiss the claim application.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial.

Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased ?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?

3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train?

4. To what relief?

During the enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, AW-1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W. 1 was examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was negligence on the part of the deceased; therefore, the Railways are not entitled to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that there was no evidence adduced by the Railways to show that the untoward incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.

The factual matrix is not in dispute. The death of the deceased while he was getting down from the train, is not in dispute. While getting down from the train, he had fallen from the train and sustained injuries. The Railway authorities had taken the deceased to hospital, but on the way to hospital, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Thereafter, the police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him by falling down from the train.

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, when the appellant establishes that the deceased died in an untoward incident, the burden shifts to the Railways in view of the presumption. Then it is the duty of the Railways to establish that the untoward incident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. There is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the Railways in this regard to show that there was negligence on the part of the deceased with regard to succumbing to the injuries. In the absence of any evidence, mere taking a plea does not amount to evidence.

The other aspect of the case that the deceased was a bona fide passenger is not in dispute. The Railway police seized the ticket from the deceased, which reveals that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide purchaser, and so, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation. None of the findings is shown to be perverse and the order is basing on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Hence, there are no grounds to allow the appeal.