Union of India v. Jajala Satyanarayana & Ors.

Judgment

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 07.08.2007, in O.A.A.No.51 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Jajala Venkata Ramana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed directing the Railways to deposit the amount within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order till realization.

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

3. The applicants filed O.A.A. stating that on 20.08.2001 the deceased went to Ramagundam to bring his sisters i.e., applicant Nos. 3 and 4. While the deceased was travelling by Bhagyanagar Express from Ramagundam to Bellampalli by purchasing ticket No.27972491, he went to bathroom and after attending the nature calls, he went to wash basin to wash the face near the doors of the train, but he had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train. Applicant Nos.3 and 4 search for the deceased at Bellampalli Railway Station and went to home and informed the same to their parents, who in turn enquired about the deceased and reported the matter to Bellampalli Railway Station as well as to the Railway police. On the next day morning the Keyman of the Railway Department found the dead body of the deceased in between Mandamarri and Bellampalli Railway Stations near KM No.247/27-23 near over bridge. The Keyman informed incident the Deputy Station Superintendent/Bellampalli, who in turn gave message to Railway

Police, Bellampalli and First Information Report was recorded by the Railway Police, Bellampalli. Hence, the claim application.

4. Respondent/Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated the dead body was found lying on the up line track between Mandamarri and Bellampalli Railway Stations by the night Keyman; that neither the Guard of the train nor any other person seen anybody falling from the running train; that no Alarm chain was pulled; that it is not a case of accidental fall from the passenger train and the death might have been occurred due to self inflicted injury arising out of his own criminal act; that the claim application is not maintainable and the applicants are not entitled to any compensation and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased J.Venkata Ramana?

2. Whether the deceased was bona fide passenger by Bhagyanagar Express travelling from Mandamarry RS to Bellampalli RS on 20.08.2001?

3. Whether the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the running train between Mandamarri and Bellampalli Railway Stations?

4. To what relief?

6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

7. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the deceased died in an untoward incident; and that the dependents of the deceased are entitled for compensation and accordingly granted compensation. Challenging the same, the respondent/railways filed the present appeal.

8. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant/railways contended that applicant Nos.3 and 4 have not given any report to police regarding the untoward incident; that due to negligence of the deceased only the incident had taken place and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel respondents/applicants contended that since two requirements under Section 124A of the Railway Act, 1989 ( for short, ‘the Act’) are established by applicants, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to the interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Act, the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants 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 a passenger train. If these two requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, its case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act.

11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not disputed. Police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and thereafter the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. The Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries. It is not in dispute that the dead body was noticed by the Keyman of the railways by the side of the track. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident.

12. As far as bona fide passenger is concerned, the applicants produced Ex.A.4 copy of computer generated second class journey ticket, dated 20.08.2001, to travel from Ramagundem to Bellampalli for one adult and two children by paying Rs.16/- and the same is not shown to incorrect or in valid. Once two requirements under Section 124A of the Act are established, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased is not available to the Railways. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. Therefore, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. From the evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 07.08.2007 in O.A.A.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 YVL