The Union of India v. Cheveti Kondamma @ Appalakonda

Judgment

- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated

10.11.2008, in O.A.A.Nos.251 of 2002 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 Section 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 Cheveti Srinu (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on

19.05.2002 was allowed. 2 . The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal is as follows: Respondents/applicants are the wife, minor son and parents of the deceased. On 19.05.2002, the deceased purchased a passenger train ticket to travel from Eluru to Visakhapatnam and boarded Train No.471 passenger. After the train crossed Bhimadole Railway Station, he fell from the train between K.M.No.507/14-16 on the down loop line due to heavy rush and jerks of the train and died on the spot. The ticket was lost at the time of the accident.

3. The appellant/Railways denied the averments in the written statement and stated that as per the Guard of train No.471 passenger, no incident of accidental fall of any passenger at Bhimadole was reported and there was no alarm chain pulling to stop the train. A Keyman of Bhimadole Railway Station informed the Station Superintendent, Bhimadole that a male dead body aged about 35 years was found lying on down loop line at Km.No.507/14-16 at Bhimadole Station. There is no eye witness to his fall from train. The death of the deceased was not as a result of fall from the train and will not attract the provisions 123(c) and 124-A of the Act and the alleged incident might have been caused by the criminal acts of the deceased, which disentitle the applicants from claiming any compensation and prays for dismissal of the application.

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

1. Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question?

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

4. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, came to conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, granted compensation.

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

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as the applicants failed to produce the ticket, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that it is not a case of untoward incident because the incident must have happened due to the negligence of the deceased and hence, he prays to allow the appeal.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that since the number of the ticket has been specifically mentioned in the inquest report as well as in First Information Report, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that the body was found by the side of the railway track and the left leg and left hand were cut in the incident, and therefore, he must have received injuries and died in the untoward incident; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal.

10. 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. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions under Section 124-A of the Act.

11. With regard to the untoward incident, it is clear that the body of the deceased was found by the side of the track and his left leg and left hand were found amputated. Police investigated into and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. If the contention of the railways that there was negligence on the part of the deceased is to be accepted, still, it is not a ground to reject the claim of the applicants on that ground because the applicants need not prove the negligence on the part of the railway administration in causing the accident because Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case of the railway administration does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned in the said proviso. Therefore, it is a clear case where the deceased had fallen from the running train, sustained injuries and died.

12. With regard to the second aspect i.e., whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not, no doubt, the applicants have not produced the ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. But, at the same time, the First Information Report as well as the Inquest Report would clearly go to show that the police seized the ticket and its number has been noted in both the documents. The objective findings of the police during the course of investigation are admissible under law. Therefore, the ticket with the number as mentioned in the Inquest Report and as well as in the First Information Report is not shown to be fabricated or invalid ticket. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Considering these aspects, 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.

13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11th August, 2011 AMD _​ ​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.59 of 2009. ​ Date:11.08.2011 AMD