Miscellaneous Appeal No. 467 of 2010 · High Court

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 06.04.2010 in O.A.A No.62 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- the death of Gangapatnam Venugopal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed.

The claimants filed the Original Application stating that on

02.10.2002, while the deceased was travelling in train No.6040 Ganga-Kaveri Express with ticket bearing No.87645971 from Jabalpur to Gudur, he slipped and fell down from the train due to its speed and jerks, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application.

The railways filed written statement denying averments made in the application and stated that the claim of the applicants does not fall under the provisions of Section 123 (c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and so the Railways are not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the claim application.

The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways.

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

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended it is a case of suicide which falls under Clause (c) of Section 124-A of the Act and therefore, the respondents-applicants are not entitled to any compensation.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents- applicants contended that the deceased was coming from long distance namely, Jabalpur with valid ticket and as such, the question of committing suicide when he reached destination is highly improbable and after considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

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 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 train carrying passengers with valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by the applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.

It is not in dispute that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel from Jabalpur to Gudur. According to the applicants, the deceased fell down due to sudden jerk and came under the wheels of the train, as a result, his head was separated from the body and therefore, it would not have been a case of suicide. It must be proved by the applicants that the deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling in a train carrying passengers with valid ticket. Ex.A1, First Information Report, would clearly go to show that a male person was run over and killed by train No.6040 Express.

It is also not in dispute that the deceased went to Jabalpur to see his newly married sister and after seeing her, he was returning to Gudur with valid ticket. When the train stopped at one place, the deceased came to the door hurriedly, thinking that Gudur Station had arrived, and having lost control, accidentally slipped and fell down and as a result, he was dragged by the train and his head and left hand were cut and he died instantaneously. Ordinarily, when a person falls from a moving train, the possibility of severance of head from the body may not be possible. In the instant case, the deceased appears to have fallen down while the train was moving slowly and before the arrival of his destination namely Gudur Station, and so, the possibility of his head coming under the wheels, resulting in severance of head from the body, cannot be ruled out. Even, R.Ws.1 and 2 are not the eyewitnesses to the accident to depose as to whether the deceased slipped from some other train or he committed suicide. There are no other circumstances to infer that the deceased committed suicide. The Railway Administration failed to adduce any evidence to show that it was a case of suicide.

Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, rightly granted compensation to the applicants. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

13.10.2011 _____________ K.C. BHANU, J