Union of India v. V.Bullemma & Ors.

- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 18.09.2008, in O.A.A.No.104 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of V.Subba Rao (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on

11.11.2005, was allowed.

The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the wife, children and parents respectively of the deceased; that on

11.11.2005, the deceased along with his family members, with an intention to go to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam for darshan of Lord Venkateswara, came from Sontivaripakalu village by an auto upto Kakinada Port railway station and purchased eight journey tickets bearing Nos.59085 to 59090 and 08702 and 08703, and all of them boarded into a general compartment of train No.274 Kakinada – Tirupati passenger, and while travelling, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at Eluru railway station, sustained grievous injuries on both legs and left hand, and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Eluru by the station authorities and from there, to Government Hospital, Kakinada where he succumbed to injuries on

22.11.2005 while undergoing treatment.

The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that in the absence of filing of any tickets, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger; that during inquest, the family members of the deceased did not give any ticket number to the police and the same has not been mentioned in the inquest report; that as per the Guard and Driver of train No.274 passenger, who gave information to Duty Station Superintendent, Eluru, after starting the train, there was a chain pulling to bogie No.SC 4S 92436 and one male person aged about 45 years fallen while trying to board on run from off side of the platform, two legs injured and cut on the right hand palm was noticed; that the said act of the deceased was an offence punishable under Section 156 of the Act and hence, the Railways are not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants, and prayed for dismissal of the application.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:-

Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.274 Kakinada – Tirupati passenger travelling Kakinada Port Railway station to Tirupati on 11.11.2005?

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

4. To what relief?

On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-3.

The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal.

Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal?

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the deceased was negligent in boarding the train resulting in his death; that for the negligence on the part of the deceased, representatives are not entitled compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The

first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.

The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Ex.A-4 is the original ticket filed by the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Once these two requirements are established, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation.

Coming to the aspect of negligence, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because it is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. The Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.