Union of India v. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.982 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 21-06-2006 in O.A.A No.305 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of Koochana Ramulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed.

Brief facts are that on 20-10-2001, the deceased boarded Sirpur-Kagaznagar-Secunderabad Special Train from Manhiryal to Hansanparthi Road and while travelling, he accidentally fell down at KM 335/20-24 between Jammikunta and Uppal Railway Stations, resulting in his death on the spot due to injuries. Hence, the claim application.

The railways filed written statement denying averments in the application and stated that on 20-10-2001, somebody informed the Gateman of L.C. Gate No.18 about a dead body of a person at KM 335/20-24, which was in turn reported by the Gateman to the on duty SM/JMKT and further to SS/KZJ and SI/GRP. It is stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger nor the fall was an untoward incident and therefore, the Railways are not liable to pay the compensation.

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

Whether the applicants, who are parents of the deceased, are sole dependents of the deceased Kochana Ramulu?

2. Whether the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of Sirpur Kagaznagar-Secunderabad Special Train Manchiryal to Hasanparthi Road on 20-10-2001? travelling

3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Jammikunta and Uppal Railway Stations?

4. To what relief?

During enquiry, on behalf of applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to A5 were got marked. On behalf of the Railways, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked..

The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directed the Railways to pay the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of documentary proof issued by the M.R.O. or else it shall carry interest at 6% per annum till realization. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways.

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

Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the deceased has not fallen from the running train, that no complaint was lodged by anybody, that in the absence of any evidence on record, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was due to untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. the First

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-applicants contended Information Report, inquest report and post-mortem report would disclose that the deceased died in an untoward incident, that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket, that the trial Court after considering the evidence on record, rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket.

The applicants produced computerized ticket bearing No.10515366, dated 20-10-2001 issued at 13.22 hours to travel in second class between Mancheryal and Hasanparthy road for one adult. The said ticket is not shown to be incorrect or false or fabricated one. After death of the deceased, police held inquest over the dead body on 21-10-2001. In the F.I.R. itself, it is stated that a person had fallen from the running train, which is the information sent by one of the Railway officials. Therefore, from the recital in Ex.A1, which is the message sent by the Railway Official to police informing about the person falling from the compartment, it is clear that it is a case of untoward incident as the deceased had fallen from the running train accidentally. Coming to the death of the deceased, the inquest report would go to show that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him by falling from the running train. Similarly, the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased opined that the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased was in a train accident. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering he evidence on record, rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 29-03-2011 Hsd