G.Jhansi Laxmi and two other v. Union of India

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1266 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Claimants, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 23-09-2005 in O.A.A No.217 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad.

The brief facts are that, claimants who are the wife and children of G.Pattabhiramaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs stating that the deceased on 07-08-1998 boarded train No.2759 Charminar Express from Chennai to Hyderabad by holding ticket No.04957940 in coach No.S2, berth No.19 and when the train reached Gudur Railway Station, the deceased got down to have light refreshment and again while boarding the train, he slipped and sustained injuries and became unconscious. TTE and the train Guard handed over the person to the Dy.S.S. on duty, Gudur for necessary action. The injured was sent to the hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. Hence, the claim application.

The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stating that one person by name B.Ramakantha Rao, male, aged 67 years, after taking coffee tried to board after alighting from train No.2759 at Gudur while the train started moving, as a result, he fell down and came under the wheels and so the claimants are put to strict proof that the person injured was G. Pattabhiramaiah and in the instant case the mishap took place only on account of careless and negligent act on the part of the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the application.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial.

Whether the Applicants are the dependents of the deceased G.Pattabhiramaiah @ Brahmanandam?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.2759 Charminar express, Secunderabad as alleged? from Chennai traveling

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

4. To what relief? 5, During the enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, A.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A.6. On behalf of Railways, no oral evidence was adduced, but got marked Exs.R1 to R3.

The Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants preferred this appeal.

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

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the evidence of A.Ws. 1 and 2 would go to show that the deceased was traveling in the train as a bona fide passenger in S2 coach in berth No.19 on 07-08-1998, that he got down at Gudur to have a cup of coffee, that in the mean time the train started and when he tried to board the train, he accidentally fall and sustained injuries and died and therefore, the trial Court ought to have granted compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the order of the trial Court.

On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for Railways contended that the ticket which was seized from the possession is not the ticket issued to the deceased and as a matter of fact, the ticket No.04957940 in respect of berth No.19 of train No.2759 was issued in favour of one Rama Kantha Rao, but not in the name of the deceased and therefore, he was not the bona fide passenger and further the claimants failed to establish that the deceased died in an untoward incident and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

For the purpose of claiming compensation under the Act, the condition precedent is that the deceased was traveling in the train as a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket. According to the case of the claimants, the deceased was traveling in S2 coach of train No.2759 from Chennai to Hyderabad, but that appears to be false in view of the fact that the said ticket bearing No.04957940 stands in the name of one Rama Kantha Rao, whereas the deceased name is G.Pattabhiramaiah. So the ticket, which was seized appears to have been brought into existence so as to suit the case of the claimant. Therefore, the claimants failed to establish that the deceased was traveling in the train as a bona fide passenger. Admittedly he was not having any valid ticket to travel from Chennai to Hyderabad.

Coming to the second aspect with regard to untoward incident though it is stated that the deceased while boarding the train, accidentally fall due to the jerk in the train, the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that in the first instance police filed final report under Ex.R1, which would go to show that in spite of warning given by the passengers, the deceased tried to board the train at the point when the train had picked up the speed. So at that point of time, the deceased ought not to have ventured to board the train. When a person tried to board the speedy train, the possibility of sustaining injuries or sometimes sustaining death cannot be ruled out. Such is the case, the deceased ought not to have tried to enter into the running train especially it picked up the speed from the platform. Therefore, the trial Court considered these aspects in a right perspective. None of the findings is shown to be perverse. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same.