Miscellaneous Appeal No. 880 of 2006 · High Court

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Railways challenging the order dated 21.06.2006 in O.A.A. No.201 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents-claimants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) to grant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of one P.Balakoteswara Sharma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed.

Claimants 1 to 6 are the children of the deceased. The claimants’ version the deceased along with his son Hanumantharaya Sharma proceeded from his village, Repalle to go to Secunderabad by purchasing ticket bearing No.20098222 and boarded train No.352, passenger. When reached Miryalaguda, the deceased got down from the train to fetch water and when he tried to board the train, slipped and fell down accidentally and came under the wheels, as a result of which, he died on the spot. Hence the claim application.

The appellant-Railways denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the recitals in the inquest report are contrary to the facts stated in the claim application. Hence, the appellant cannot be made liable to pay the compensation.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4) Whether the Applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs? 5) To what relief?

The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling with a valid passenger ticket and therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.

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

Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Railways contended that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in attempting to board the running train and therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants contended that as the death of the deceased is as a result of an untoward incident, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A 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 person died; and the second condition is that such person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the appellant-railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants’ falls under any one of the clauses mentioned under Section 124-A of the Act.

The death of the deceased is as a result of an untoward incident is not in dispute. He was having valid ticket to travel in a passenger train is also not in dispute. In Ex.R1-DRM’s report itself it was mentioned that the deceased was having journey ticket bearing No.0098222 at the time of untoward incident. Therefore, from the evidence, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The contention of the appellant is that due to the negligence of the deceased only the incident has occurred. The defences available to the Railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. If the case of the Railway administration falls under any one of the clauses of the above proviso, then only the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. No evidence is adduced by Railways to show that its case falls under any one of the clauses under proviso to Section 124A of the Act. The negligence on the part of the deceased is not a defence available to the Railway administration by virtue of proviso to Section 124A of the Act. It is not a case of self- inflicting injuries or the deceased attempting to commit suicide. Even if there is some negligence on the part of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to disallow the compensation to the claimants as the deceased has fallen from the running train and sustained injuries and therefore, it is an untoward incident happened while he was travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record, rightly granted compensation.

Ex.A4-Family Members Certificate shows that the deceased has seven sons and one daughter, but in the claim petition, only six persons were shown as the claimants. So, in view of this ambiguity, the Tribunal is directed to conduct enquiry with regard to the legal heirs of the deceased and distribute the compensation equally to all his legal heirs. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, claimant No.6 died and in view of the same, the legal representatives of claimant No.6 have to be brought on record, if any. Therefore, these aspects have to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal in a separate application to be filed for that purpose. Therefore, it can be said that O.A.A. can be kept pending.

With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Dt. 30.03.2011 K.C.BHANU,J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 880 of 2006 Dt. 30.03.2011