N lvlanjula , A l\rlanjula, Wo Late fiilohan Rao v. Union of lndia

,9 { 1 cma_313_-2019 _ NBK,I THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CM MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.313 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The appellants challenge the Judgment dated 24.08.2017, passed by the Railwal Claims Tribunal. Secunderabad Bench, in O.A.II (U) No. 51 1 o12009, bl, which their claim for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest, on account of the death of Mr. Mohan Rao (husband of the 1" appellant) on 27.04.2009 while travelling tiom Kavali to Secunderabad in the Simhapuri Express, was dismissed.

Heard Sri I. Nageswara Rao, leamed counsel lor the appellants/clairnants. and Sri K.L.N. Raghavendra Reddy, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Govenment. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Railways are liable

to pay.compensation under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989, irrespective of the occr, rrrence of any wrongful act, negligence, or default on the part of the railway administration. He submits that the compensation payable rvas Rs. 4,00,000 and that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the law laid down by the Ilon'ble Supreme Courl in Kalandi Charan Sahoo vs. General Manager, South East Central Raitwayt, wherein it was held that the Railways are liable to pay compensation in the event of the death of a passenger due to an untoward incident in the course of working a railway. He fur1her submits that in the present case, there was a scuffle in the general compartment, and the deceased (Mohan Rao) was deboarded at Ilhongir after experiencing difficulty in breathing and died on the way to the hospital; and theretbre the Railways ought to have paid cornpensation and the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim. I Ciui\ Agpeo\ r'\o: SGot of zot1 2 .E cma,313_2019 NBK, J

Leamed counsel appearing for the Central Govemment contends that the friends who were travelling with the deceased stated that the deceased suffered chest pain, which was informed to the Guard of the train. Furthermore, the postmortem report indicates that the cause of death was "natural death. " As per the repoft of the Divisional Railway Manager, the deceased died due to a "heart attack" and not due to any alleged untoward incident. 5, Having considered the respective submissions and pemsed the record, it is specifically recorded by the Tribunal that the friends who were with the deceased on 27.04.2009 made no mention of any scullle having taken place between passengers. On the contrary, they stated that the deceased suffered chest pain, deboarded at Bhongir, and died on the way to the hospital. The postmortem report confirmed that the cause of death was "natural death. " This specific finding regarding the cause of death has not been disputed by either counsel. Although it is contended that the Railway administration is obligated under Section 124 of the Act to pay compensation for any mishap arising from an untoward incident, it is to be noted that there is no evidence of any such incident having occurr ed on 27.04.2009. As noted in the impugned judgment, even according to the evidence of the deceased's companions, he suffered chest pain, deboarded at Bhongir, and died while being taken to the hospital. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no illegaliry in the impugned judgment.