Kalindi Charan Sahoo and Another v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway'

Judgment

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants- applicants under Section 23 of Railway C aims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the judgment in O.A.lI (U) No.105 of 2OL4 dated 17.12-2018.

2.L. Appellant No.1 (dred) rs the wife and appellant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the deceascd-Venkat Reddy.

2.2. Appellants are the applicants and respondent ls the respondent in O. A,II (U ) N o. 10 5 <tf 201.4.

3. It is stated in the O.A. that D.Venkat Reddy, aged about 78 years, retired employee, resident of Lalithanagar, went to Shamshabad in the early morning hours of 30.12.2013 to the house of his relatives and From there he went to Dharmagiri Dharmasai Temple for morning Darshan. In return journey, D.Venkat Reddy was accompanied by his relative by nan e S.Padmanabha Reddy went to Umdanagar railway station and purchased a passenger ticket from Umdanagar to Vidyanagar. D.Venkat Reddy boarded train No.57306, Guntur-l4edchal Passenger and left in the presence of his re ative. After departure of the train From the station, his relative returned. There was heavy rush in the train and D.Venkat Reddy slipped and fell down accidentally zl77 BRMR,J CM,l\.No.778 2019 at KM No.5/11 in between platform and railway track of Vidyanagar railway station, having sustained severe multiple injuries died on the spot on the afternoon of 30.12.2013. .lourney ticket was lost and the body of D.Venkat Reddy was dragged, his clothes were badly torn and prayed to award compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs with interest from the date of accident and costs.

4. Respondent. filed written statement and contended that there is no cause of action for the appellants-appllcants and the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) or section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989. Guard of train No.57306 stated that ACP occurred to coach No.G598525, he immediately reached the spot and rectified the ACP and noticed one male dead body is lying between the track and platform. on enquiry passengers informed that the deceased tried to board the moving train, slipped and fell down from the train. There are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. The incident occurred due to the negligence and carelessness of the deceased - D.Ven kat Reddy. As per Inquest, no journey ticket is recovered from the deceased and he is not a bonafide passenger. It is not a case of accidental fall from train, it is a case of suspicious death. Hence, the application is not maintainable. Even according to the Inquest report, deceased- D.Venkat Reddy was not possessing journey ticket and prayed to dismiss the application. -..._ 3117 BRMR,.,I CMA No 77a 20 lr)

5. The learned Tr bunal has framed the following tssues

1. Whether the applicant(s) islare dependents of the deceased? 2, Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward in cid e nt?

3. Whether tl're apoircant(s) is/are entitled to the compensatlr)n as cia med and to what relief?

6. Appellant No,2 is examrned as AW.1 also examined AW.2- S.Padmanabha R.edd), ano got marked Exs.A1 to A11, Respondent did not led any evidence, but gct marked Ex.R1.

7. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence and the documents marked thereon arrived at a conclusion that the deceased neither a bonafide passenger nor he suffered D.Venkat Reddy is u ntoward incident and the applicants are not real dependents and dismissed the O.A. which is impugned in the cresent Appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submits that the Tribunal has shown narrow-minded approach while adjudicating the case and erroneously appreciated the applicability of the provisions of I Seclion 124-A of Railways Act and grossly erred in hoiding that deceased-D.Venkat R.eddy was not a bonafide passenger and also erred that the death of the deceased D.Venkat Reddy was not due to an untoward incident. The act is beneflcial p ece of legislation and the ,/ 4lt7 tsRMR,J CMA No.778 2019 Tribunal should have adopted a liberal approach. Counsel has restricted her claim for Rs.8 Lakhs and relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Kalindi Charan Sahoo and Another Vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railway', 12; Union of India Vs. Rina Devi2, (3) Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others3, (4) Doli Rani Saha Vs. Union of India4, (5) l.sulochana Vs. Union of India, Rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad s and prayed to allow the Appea,.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the Facts of the case by taking into consideration the documents and evidence led by the appella nts -a pplica nts, relied on the decision in the case of Nookala Venkateswarlu (died) and another Vs. The Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad6 and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants has filed her written submissions in support of her contention.

11. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. I 2018 ACI 1460 2 20tB ACI 1441 3 civil lppeal No.3799 of 2023 of the supreme court of India dated 16.05.2023 " zo24 INSC 603 s crqA No.7o2 of 2017 dated 22.o7.2024 of the High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad 6 cMn No.1156 of 2017 dated t2.o4.2022 ofthe High court for the state of Telangana at llqderabad I 5lt7 BRMR,J (l\44 No.77a 20 19

12. Now the poinl for consideration is : Whether lhe judg ment passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.II (U) No.105 of 2014 dated

17.l2.2OlB suffers 1'rom any illegality or perversity, rf so, does it requires interFerence of this Court?

13.1. The evidence cf AW.1 is the same with that of the O.A. and it is further stated in the affidavit that as his father did not turn up on

30.12.2013, he along with his younger brother and relatives made eFforts with friends about his Father's whereabouts and they all went to Nallakunta police statlon and lodged a comp aint of "Man missing" and also gave paper publ,cation in Eenadu Telugu Daily News Paper about the missing of his father. After 2 weeks, they approached Satya Harishchandra Foundation Trust and they came to know that 100 dead bodies pertaining to Osmanla Mortuary were cremated just one day before they reached. On watching the dead bodies through website they found their father's dead body and they learnt that his father is involved in a train accident, slipped and fell down accidentally from train No.57306, GJntur-Medchal Passenger on 30.12.2013 at Vidyanagar Railway Station and succumbed to injuries on the spot. The train ticket was not found by the Railway Police at the time of police panchanama as it was lost since he was dragged by the train, clothes were badly torn 6lr7 BRMR,J CMA.No.778 2019

13.2. In his cross-exa m ination, he stated that his name is not reflected in Ex.A8-copy of Ration Card and also of appellant No.3- C.Mani and appellant No.4-D.Praveen Reddy and the address shown in Ex.A10 (Aadhar card of AW.1) and the address in the application are not one and the same and he has not filed the missing complaint lodged at Nallakunta police station, so also the paper publication got issued in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper to show that they made efforts to know the whereabouts of the deceased D.Venkat Reddy. He has not received any recerpt or document to show that the body of D.Venkat Reddy was got cremated by Satya Harishchandra Foundation Trust and Exs.A1 to A7 are given by Kacheguda Railway Police and he has not given any letter or complaint to them regarding the death of the deceased-D.Venkat Reddy in spite of their handing over all the documents. He has not filed the journey ticket, did not receive any belongings of the deceased from the concerned police. AW.1 denied the suggestion that deceased D.Venkat Reddy fell down while trying to board the running train at Vidyanagar Railway Station and also denied the suggestion that the deceased is not his father and they are not the dependents of the deceased-D.Venkat Reddy and they have filed false claim.

14.1\ AW.2 is the relative of the deceased - D.Ven kat Reddy and his evidence is to the extent that his uncle D.Venkat Reddy came to his house at Shamshabad in the morning hours on 30.12.2013 to s9e his ,,? 7 117 URA,1R,J CMA Nc 778 20lg family and his younger sister's family and they visited "Dharmasai Temple" ano had darshan. After darshan, they went to Umdanagar Railway Station on tre same day, the deceased purchased 2" class ordinary passenger lrain ticket from Umdanagar to Vidyanagar and boarded train No.57306, Guntur-l\4edchal Passenger and he left in his presence. After departure of the train, he left the railway station. Rest of the evidence of AW,2 is similar with that of the evidence of AW.1.

14.2. In his cross-examtnation, he stated that he has seen the deceased-D.Venkat Reddy purchasing the ticket and he has not filed the platform ticket to show that he accompanied with the deceased on

30.12.2013 and his uncle is aged about 78 years, he was hale and healthy and he stays 100 kilometres away from the house of hts uncle. Last rites were performed by Harishchandra Foundation Trust and he was not shown any ohotograph of the deceased, his co-brother has identified his uncle through photographs and the photographs are not shown to him today. He denied the suggestion that he is a planted witness.

15.1. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of the FIR in Crime No.374 of 2013 of GRP Secunderabad, PS Kacheguda dated 30.12.2013 and the complainant therein is B.Venkateshwar, Deputy SS Kacheguda. The Section of Law is 174 Cr.P.C. The tenor of the complaint is that one male dead body aged around 50 years lying on Track (up Jine) which .-.=, -/ 8l17 BRMR,J CMA No.778 2019 was run over by Guntur 14ED passengers, 57306. Ex.A2 is the attested copy of Inquest report dated 30.12.2013 in Crime No.374 of 2013. In column No.15 it states that as per the statements given by the witnesses, it is learnt that on 30.12.2Ot3 the deceased before his death has slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train No.57306, Guntur-Medchal on Platform No.1 of Vidyanagar Railway Station and death has occurred. Ex.A3 is the post-mortem report of unknown male aged about 60 years dated 31.12.2013. Ex.A4 is the death certificate vide Book No.374 of 2013 and date of death is shown as 30.12.2013; name of the deceased is shown as D.Venkat Reddy, son of Sai Reddy; Place of death is shown as platform No.1, Vidyanagar Railway Station, age is shown as 78 years and the informant name is shown as B.Venkateshwar, Deputy station Superintendant, Kacheguda Railway station. Ex.As rs the copy of Look oui notice dated 30.12.2013 issued at 14 hours in Crime No.374 of 2013 showing the name of the deceased as male person. Ex.A6 is the Disposal letter whlch states that after strenuous efforts the deceased could not be identified and requested to dispose of the dead body through GHMC or any other such organization. On the reverse of Ex.A6, the name is mentioned as D.Narasimha Reddy, son of Late Venkat Reddy, Cell Nos.800A945459, 9393362368. Ex.A7 are the photographs, Ex.A8 is the Household card of Dyappa Venkat Reddy, Son of Sai Reddy. His wife's name is shown as Suganamma (appellant \ 9177 IJRMIi,J ('MA.No 778 20 19 No.1 herein), Praveen (appellant No.4 herern) and Pullamma (mother of the deceased), Ex.Ag is the Unique Identification Card of the deccased-D.Venkat Reddy. Ex.A10 is the Unique Identification Card of app.llant No.2-AW.1 and Ex.A11 is the Unrque Identirication Card of appellant N0.4.

15.2 In Exs.A1 to A3 there was no name of the male dead body but whereas in Ex.A4, the name of the deceased is shown as Dyappa Venkat Reddy, son of Sai Reddy. 16, Ex.R1 is the D visional Railway f"lanager's Report. The name of the Ceceased is shown as D.Venkat Reddy, aged about 78 years, son of Late D.Sar Reddy, resident of H.No.1-9-485/).5/fO/A, Lalitha Na9ar, Hyderabad. The name of the Investigating Officer is A.Raju Babu, ASI/RPF/KCG. As per his investigation dated 18.07.2014 he has examined Smt.G.Srivani, Commercial CIerk, Vidhyanagar; B.Venkateshwar, SS/KCG; Sri Dharmendar Chaudhary-Passenger Guard. Appellant No.1 is also examined, her statement goes to show that D.Venkat Reddy has purchased journey ticket and boarded train No.57307 and her husband did not reach the house and lodged a complaint in local police station, Nallakunta, after two weeks of missing while searching they came to know her husband dead body is in Harishchandra Trust, Osmanta Hospital but a day before his funeral was performed along with other 100 dead bodies. In the statement of .,. ro/17 BRMR.'I CMA.No 778-20Iq Dharmendar Chaudhary, passenger informed him that the deceased person tried to board moving train, slipped, fell down under the train and died, there were no jerks or jolts during running of the train.

17. In Ex.R1 sheet No.4 dated 08.07.2014, Column No.B details of investigation states that on receipt of this claim's case A.Raju Babu, SIPF/KCG has been entrusted to carry out necessary inquiry. Date of examination of G.Srivani is 24.06.2O14; Smt.D.Sugunamma dated

02.O7.2OL4; Dharmendar Chaudhary dated 02.07.2014.

18. As per Ex.R1, investigation commenced on receipt of the claim application. It is worth mentioning that in Ex.R1 House number of the deceased is mentioned as H.No.1-9-485/15110/A, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad, which are in consonance with Exs.A8, A9 and A11. House numbers are tallying with the House numbers mentioned in Ex.R1 with that of the above said documents. lt cannot be said that the a ppella nts-applica nts are not the legal heirs of the deceased-D.Venkat Reddy. In Form No.2 of Ex.R1 the same House number is mentioned in the description of deceased - D.Ven kat Reddy.

19. It is appropriate to refer Rule 7 (2), Rule 10 (3), Rule 11(1) of Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Amendment Rules,2007 which reads as under: "7. Conducting of Investigation and Submission of Report by thqForce: -.' \J w Lllt7 BR1\f R,J al\1A No 778 2019 (2) The Olticer of the Force ["shall complete the investrEation within sixty days and"] submit a report to the ["autho-ily"] specified under sub-rule (2) of rule 10". '10. Frlrvarding of Investtgation Report by the Police and the Force: (3). The Divisional Security Commissioner shall submit the rcport io Divisicnal Railway Manager within fifteen days of the receipt of report of rnvestigation from officer of the force". "L1 Action on the Report l"lanage-: ( 1) The Divisional Railway report, {mentioned in sub rule the same within fifteen daysl". by the Divisiona I Railway N4anager, on receipt of the (3) of rule 10 shall examine

20. In Kalandi Charan Sahoor, the Supreme Court observed at Para Nos.l and 4,vhich reads as under: "3. Though rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') mandates the railway authoritres to investigate into such an untoward incident. Admittedly, no sJch inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before lhe RCT on 27.O2.2OO9 that investigation into the rncident was ordered on 23.04.2009. According to the Railways the said investigation revealed that the deceased detrained from the moving train at D.Cabin without stoppage of the train and lnvited the accident. ?..}, BRMR,J ClvrA.No-77a 2019 "4. Where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, We are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section L24-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

21. 1. In Rina Devi2, the issues fell for consideration are i. Whether the quantum of compensation should be as per the prescribed rate of compensation as on the date of ap plication/incident or on the date of order awarding compensation. ii, Whether principle ot strict liability applies; iii. Whether presence of a body near the railway track is enough to maintain a claim; and iv. Rate of interest.

21.2. For the present Appeal issue Nos.2 and 3 are relevant. In so far as issue No.2 (Application of prrnciple of strict liability-concept of self inflicted injury) the Supreme Court observed at Para No.16.6 which reads as under: "16.6 We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of 'self-inflicted injury' would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any partrcular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on'no fault theory'. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, 2018 ACI 1 (SC), laying down that plea of negligence ofthe victim cannot be allowed in claim based -^. U'/ ! I i I I I I I T I 13117 BRMR,.J CMA No 778 20 L9 on'no fault theory' under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury rn the irourse o' boarding or deboarding a train will be an 'r:ntovrard incidert' entitling a victim to the compensation and wri irot fall under the proviso to section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing fa cto r".

21.3. In so far as issue No.3 (burden of proofwhen a body found on railway pre:n ses - Definition of passenger), the Supreme Court obscrved at rara No. i7.4 which reads as under: "We t'rus hold ihat mere presence of a body on the railway premiscs will rot be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bonaflde passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. Initial burden will . be on:he clainant which can be discharged by filing an affidavli of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Ra lways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly".

22. The decision ir. Kamukayi3 is not applicable to the facts on hand in v ew of the fact that AW.1-Manikandan therein son of the deceased who procured a valld ticket for travel from Lalapettai to Karur and handed it overto the deceased is on record. 1 L4/17 BRMR,J CMA No.778 2019

23. In Doli Rani Saha4, the Supreme Court observed at Para No.14 which reads as under "in the present case, the appellant had duly filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which showed that the deceased was travelling on the train and that his death was caused by a fall during the course of his travel. The burden of proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumptlon that the deceased was a bonafide passenger on the train in question was not rebutted".

24. In J.Sulochanas, the High Court observed that "The dead body of the deceased was dragged up to 18 sleepers and the clothes of the deceased were found to be torn. As such, there is every chance of the journey ticket, which could be placed in the clothes might be lost on the way. As such the deceased shall be considered as a bonafide passenger".

25. The decision cited by the respondent counsel in Nookala Venkateshwarlu (died)6 is not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that there is an admission from AW.1 therein that the deceased was hit by train while she was crossing ,!"_!lq.L and she died' .4,,,'" tsl77 BRMR,.J CMA No.778 20 i9 26, In Unron of In(lia vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya KumarT, the Supreme Court 'reld tnal the :rc,visions of compensation in the Railways Act, 1989 s a b.rnef icial rrr,re of legislation and it should receive a Iiberal and rider il'cr oretat on and it is covered by the main body of Section 124-A and not rts pro',,iso.

27. Appellants havC examined AW.2 who stated that he has dropped D.Venkat Reddy in the station and Venkat Reddy has purchased the ticker:. It rs also the evrdence of AW.1 that the ticket might have been lost by the decedsed-Venkat Reddy when he fell from the train. Ex.R1 report states that the passengers have informed Dharmendra Chaudhary, Passeng€r Guard of train No.57307 that the deceased person tried to board moving train, slipped and fell down and died, but he is not examined by the respondent as a witness. Accident is admitted thal tire deceased died and lying between the track and platform.

28. The inirial burdcn cast on the appellants-applicants is discharged by adducrng evidence and the respondents failed to read any evidence to drscharge their bJrden that the deceased-Venkat Reddy is not holdi^g any lrcket dur nE his journey.

29. Respondent has commenced the investigation after receipt of claim application which is filed on 77.03.2014 to carry oqt ng-cggsqry ."". '(2008) 9 scc 5.t / L6lt7 BRMR,J CMA.N0.778 2019 inquiry. Admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident, hence Kalindi Charan Sahool is squarely applicable to the case on hand.

30. The decision in Rina Devi2, Doli Rani Sahaa and J.Sulochanas are squarely applicable to the case on hand. The learned Tribunal failed to note that the provisions of compensation in the Railways Act, 1989 is a beneficial piece of leglslation and lt should receive liberal approach ( Prabhaka ran Vijaya KumarT).

31. The learned Tribunal has misread the evidence adduced by the appellants-applicants and failed to note from the Divisional Railway Manager's report (Ex.R1) with that of Exs.A8 to All which matches with the House number of the appellants with that of the House number mentioned in Ex.R1 report. The Supreme Court in Rina Devi's case2 held that the initial burden will be on the claimants which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. As stated supra, the reasoning of the learned Tribunal is perverse and failed to look into the evidence coupled with the documents marked thereon. which requires interference of this Court.

32. In the result, CMA is allowed and the judgment passed by the ^t! learned Tribunal in O.A.II (U) No.105 of 2014, dated 77.12.2018 is set 17117 BRMR,J CMA No 778 2019 aside. Appellant Nos.2 to 5 are entitled for compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs yi ith intercst (@ 7o/o eer annum from the date of accident. Respondent is hereby directed to deposit the amount within 2 months from the date of recc Dt of the copy of the judgment. On such deposit, appellant Nos,2 !o 5 are entitled equally with interest thereon and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount without furnishing secu rity. Interim orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s sta nds c osed // rRUt:_coPY/ / SDi. I.NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER -fo, 1 2 3 4. /s JCI: The Railn'ay clainrs frihurra[, sc.r u^crerabad Berrch at secu^derabad One CCI to Ms. Ct'etlra \,larlhuri, N.S., Aclvocate [OpUC] One CC'to NIs. K.l\4ani I)r'1'pl(3, r\clvocatc tOpUCl 'I'wo C[) Copies HICH COUT{T DA-I'ED:\E/10/2025 JUDCMENT CNIA.No.778 of 2019 r- o o ( t 1 HE SIA 1 I t{lfl 2l]26 \' L-, * Allorving the C.M.A. r,r,ithouI costs t'V o\ \^