The High Court · 2025

Judgment

Aggrieved by order, dated 18.C{.2008, in O.A.A.No.258 of 2OO8 passed by the Rail.,ray Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secuncje rabad, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Ms. N.S.Geetha Madhuri, learned :ounsel for appellants and Ms. Rukmini, learned Standing )ounsel for respondent. 3 The appellants/applicants representatives of the deceased, the l: 1al heirs/ compen sation of

Rs.4,OO,00O/- is claimed for death of Smt. K.Sr,: wife of appellant No. I and mother of appel. and 3. It is the case of appellants/applic Smt. K. Sreeravarnma went to Viiayawada tr daughter K.V.V.Nagajyothi (eldest daughter). At I Railway Station, she purchased a passenger r: bearing No.4OZO2224 and boar_@ed Train No.4i night of 09.06.2008, Vijayawada_Rayagada passt:: :ravaruna, ant Nos.2 1nts that See her ijayawada ein ticket I on the rger. It is 2 averred that she wanted to go to Samalkot and at the tirne of departr.re , her daughter was present. As there wls heavy rush in the train c.ompartment, the deceased accidentally fell from the train and died on tJre spot.

4. Railway Tribunal examined A.W.l, Exs.Al to ,{9 were marked on behalf of t.Ile appellants, R.Ws.l arrd 2 on behalf of the respondent arrd C.W.l was examined on behalf of Tribunal, Exs.R I to RS were marked on behalf of respondent, Ex.Cl was marked on behalf of the respondent-Railways. Railway Tribunal considered the depositions of A.W.1, R.Ws.1 and 2, C.W.I, the documents marked, and arrived at a conclusion tJ.at no compensation was payable to the applicants on the premise that applicants have not produced any rvitnesses to show that the deceased travelled by the same train up to Samalkot. Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that case of the deceased falls urrder exception {d) to Section 124-A of the Railways Act {for short, 'the ActJ and held that the applicants are not entitled for compensation. : I ; ; I I t t ? I d! : I JAK J CTLLN@930_2011 3

5. Order of Tribunal is under challenge in .he present CMA by the applicants/ appeilants.

6. Learned counsel for the applicalts sub. nitted that Inquest Report, Post Mortern Report, depositio: r of R.W.2, Police Certihcate (Ex.A9) and Finat Report indir:; death of the deceased occurred at Samal.< Lte that t]re rt Railway Station premises, opposite to the office of t :ie Deputy Station Superintendent. It is further submitted the written statement, no other document :hat except s filed to substantiate the claim that the deattr of decee.s ed did not occur at Railway Station. It is also submitted . hat one of the constables of the Government Railway p: ice was a signatory to the Inquest Report with two othe:. witnesses, that the Raitway Tribunal discarded the Inquest Report on the ground that except the constable of the (i )vernment Railway Police, no other witness signed the Inque st Report.

7. Learned counsel invited the attention of thi s Court to paragraph Nos.9, 15, 20, 2l and 22 of the Inqr: :st Report to buttress the contention mat ,s per the Inqrlst Report prepared by the authorities the death of thr: deceased t ' : t J1K J CMlNo.gto,Xl t 4 t occurred in the Railway Station premises in the early hours of 10.06.2OO8. It is submitted that a railway ticket was found with 8. the deceased and that the said railway ticket v/as purchased at Vijayawada Railway Station in the presence of A.W.l, who came to the Raihvay Station to give send off to her mother and that the said railway ticket was up to Samalkot and the incident occurred at Samalkot Railway Station. It is further submitted that A.W'l deposed that she had come to tl.e railway station to give send off to her mother and her mother purchased h ticket to Samalkot' It is also submitted that in the statement of A'W'l that her mother purchased ticket is suffrce to claim that the deceased had travelled to Samalkot. It is pointed out that in the Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report, Final Report and the First lnformation Report, it is recorded that body of the deceased was found on the railway track and the Keyman had informed the Government Railway Police and the Railway Protection Force on 10'06'2008 and that the \ J,IK J cMtLNdg3O_2o11 5 Assistant Station Superintendent was also i: Lformed and this fact is not dcnied.

9. It is submitted that Rules 6 and Z ol. the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untowr .d Incidents) Rules, 2003 (for short "the Rules, 2003") reqr ire that tJle Railway Protection Force has to conc I ct firrther investigation after the investigation of the ]overnment Railway Police comes to a halt and that the I rvestigating Report of the Railway protection Force has to b : submitted to the D.R.M. (Divisional Railway Manager), ,rho has to take further necessary steps. That in the prese rt case, no D.R.M. report is placed on record.

10. It is pointed out that the Railway Tribur aI fell into error in concluding that the Inquest Report cannot be relied upon for want of signatures of other two witnesses. It is urged that one of the Railway constables a .tested the Inquest Report alrd the same is evident from paragraph No.20 of the Inquest Report. It is further poinle 1 out that t}le cause of death in the post. Mortem Exarr ination is stated to be due to railway accident and that i r.: the Final t : : t: ! i 6 Report, the same is reflected. That tlre Tribunat fell into error in not considering the said facts and dismissed t1:e claim application mechanically, rvithout application of rnind. 1 1. It is submitted that R.W.2-Station Superintendent, Samalkot, examined on behalf of the respondent-Railways, stated that he was not aware of the incident, but the record establishes the fact that the I(eyman had informed the Government Railway Police/Railway Police Force and also the Station Superintendent and the said R.W.2 is the complainant.

12. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Honble the Apex Court in Kamukagi and otla"s o. Union oJ India and others (Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023) to buttress the contention that the statements reflected in the First lnformation Report, Inquest Report, Final Report and Inves[igation Report prepared, as per Rule 7 of the Ru.les, 2003, have to be considered and an order vrhich does not consider the contents of the dccuments of in',restigation, ], 5 ..,_rr;;t,:,,.t;**.,... .:;$1.K1- J,lK J cM,1.No.93O 2011 7 then such an order would be characterizeci as an order being perverse and would be liable to be set as de.

13. l,earned cor:nsel further relied on the juc gment of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Doli Rani Sahar o. Union of Indla (C"tttll Appeat No.86OS of 2O2Q to :uttress the contention that the burden of proof is on the Railways to bring home the fact that death of the decr:r sed did not occur by a fall during the course of travel. L4. Learned counsel relied on the judgmer t passed by this Court in C.M.A. No. 849 of 2O05 dated 18. )6.2010.

15. Leamed Standing Counsel appearing or rehalf of the respondent(s) submitted that paragraph Nos.3. 5, 6 and 8 of the written statement indicated that the ir cident that occurred, leading to thc death of the mc Lher of the appellants, cannot be under exceptions to Secl ron I24-A of the Act. It is further submitted that st, rtements of K.L.SamuIe, Guard and Thaneti Wellingt,,n, Sr.YPC, obtained by the Assistant Sub-Inspector ol rhe Railway ,/ / f t t I J,,tK J CI4-1Nt930 20h Protection Force, establish that the death of the appellants, mother cannot be termed as a death under exceptions.

16. karned Standing Counsel relied upon the statements of one Oletti Subramaayam, the Deputy Station Superintendent, made before the Assistant Sub_Inspector of Railway protection Force and Station Ieave Orgarrizer. It is further submitted that the statement of the Guard was recorded by Sr.ypC dated Og.12.2014 {the statements upon which reliance is placed are not part ofthe record nor such statements are recorded in the orderl. 77 . Learned Shnding Counsel (inviting the attention of this Court to the narration about ttre written statement in the order) contended that the alleged incident occrlred due to the negligence of the deceased and not due to the acts of tJre respondent-Ra ways. It is further submitted that if at all the death of the appellants, rnother had occurred as submitted, then the staff of other passing trains would have nodced and would have brought to the notice of authorities. It is also submitted that train No.47l passed through station of Samalkot early in the mornrng and J,IK, J 9 thereafter, three more trains were halted c n the same platform. That in case if there was any "body' which would have fallen from train No.471 of any passerl, ;er, it would have been defirdtely noticed by the subr;r quent train drivers.

18. It is submitted that as the body was located just opposite to GRP oflice, it is highly impossible t rat the body was not sighted till 07: 15 in the morning. {t is further submitted that FIR, Inquest report and othrl documents reflect that the accident was not due to fall f r rm the train and the ticket is a planted one and evidence of R.W. 1 is not conclusive enough to arrive at a linding as ;he and her relatives did not take any steps for lO to 15 rl rys after the incident.

19. Learned Standing Counsel invited the attention of tl.is Court to tJre entire order extensive y, through paragraph Nos.8, 11, 13 and a part of con:r nts of page No.lO of the order. It is submitted that the l ribunal has given a frnding that the evidence of A.W. I was I rot inspiring .D /i e J t : JAK J CM,1-N,9!0 2Ol4 l0 confidence, the fact tl"at her mother went rnissing for 19 days and no elforts were made to trace the eviience of R.W.2 that the passenger could not have fallen from train No.471 and aIso that no further witness was produced by t1'"e applicants as to the travel of the deceased by the same train up to Samalkot and as such, the order of the Tribunal needs no interference.

20. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, considered the rival submissions. 2L. Smt. K.Sreeravammai is the mother of the applicant No.2 and applicant No.2 is examined as A.W. 1. The deceased went to Vijayawada prior to the accident to meet her daguther (A.W.1). In her deposition, A.W. 1 stated that her mother wanted to go to Samalkot to the house of her relatives to meet them, as such, she along with her mother went to Vijayawada station on 09.06.2O 18 purchased a passenger train journey ticket bearing No.4O7O2224. She further deposed that her mother boarded the l-rain No.471 Vijayawada-Rayagada passenger in a general compartment and the train left for Sanalkot. The Deputy Station &.. l I I i j : II J,4K J Superintendent, R.W.2, is examined as a r ritness. It is deposed by R.W.2 that he was on duty on lO., 16.2919 p.o- early hours of the morning till 11 O,clock. He s ?ted that he was informed by the Ke5rman about the dearl body on the railway track opposite to platform No.l. Or the basis of this information, Ex.A.2-FIR was registered r n complaiat by the Deputy Station Superintendent t-hat e iemale body was lying on platform No.1 opposite to GRp oflj :e.

22. Ex.A.3 is Inquest Report, inquest wa s held from O3:0O p.m. to 05:30 p.m. on 10.06.201g i ttended by Sri Yesubabu, Ke5rman, Sri Thaneti Wellin11.cn, Sr.ypC (Sr-clerk-cum-'Ilpist) and Sri V.S.N.Murth /, Deputy Station Superintendent. It is pertinent to nr e that the inquest report states that deceased was in pc ssession of joumey ticket, from Vijayawada to Samalk I , and the report concludes that deceased was trar e .ling from Vijayawada to Samalkot and fell from an unl< roqm train and died due to injuries.

23. It is apparent from the record, from the o der of the Tribunal and from the Inquest Report atlended b -the three IAK J Cl, .No.9J0 2011 t2 inquisitors that a journey ticket from Vijayawada to Samalkot was found. The statement of A.W. 1 is ihat her mother purchased a train journey ticket on 09.06.2008 from Vijayawada to Samalkot by train No.471 Vijayawada- Rayagada passenger. There is no dispute with respect to t]le ticket and the travel.

24. Once there is Inquest Report stating that a ticket was found and it is concluded that the deceased has fallen from the train. It can be safely inferred that the deceased must have fallen from the said train on rvhich she was travelling and the frnding of the Tribunal that the deceased could have fallen from unknown train on the raihvay track and was not noticed till 07:15 hours fades into insignificance.

25. When there is a ticket, body is found on the railway track and the evidence of A.W. 1 is not shattered, it dehes the logic of this Court as to how the railway Tribunal has anived at a finding that the passenger could have fallen from some other train. It further dehes the logic of this Court as to how the Tribunal arrived at a frnding that the deposition of A.W.1 was questionable on the ground that ,, 13 JAK J she and her father did not realizn for J 9 days the whereabouts of the deceased. Coupled with t ris fact, the Tribunal went on to rely upon the deposition c i R.W.2 that the fall from passenger train No.471 would rc t have been feasible. These findings are without any formda:ion, as it is reflected in the order itself that in the inquest :-( port, it was stated clearly that tlle deceased was carrying z ticket and the deceased travelled from Vijayawada to Sama kot. 26. R.W.2 is Deputy Station Superintenden t a part of three member team who were inquisitors to t te inquest report. If the deposition of R.W.2 is to be relied rpon, then the inquest report invariably has to be set aside It is not the case of the railways that Keyman has not r oticed the body in the early hours at 07:15 p.m., on the ra:l vay track, merely because the body is found or discovered l€ te, it does not indicate that the fall can be doubted, espe<:i rlly when there is a ticket (bearing No.4OZO2224) pr.rrchas,: I and the travel not being disputed. The deceased_passeng,: boarded the train at Vijayawada and reached at Samall<, rt with a valid ticket. The contention that travel by train I,o.471 is JAK J t4 doubted, is a feeble defence by t]-e Railways in the Iight of the deposition of A.W.l {deceased daughter), which stood unrebutted.

27. It is trite law that a person who disputes or raises a ground has to substantiate the same by a valid piece of evidence or a statement is to be elicited in ttre cross- examination, but not on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The Railway Tribunal fell into error in hotding that the circumstantial evidence given by R.W.2 that fall from passenger train No.471 would not have been feasible and taking into consideration the unrelated fact that the daughter and the husband have not tried to knorv the whereabouts of the deceased for 19 days is a questionable conduct, are not grounds to render a finding that the deceased death is not an accidental fall. The approach of the Rails'ay Tribunal apparently is flawed, which cannot be sustained.

24. There is dispute with regard to the signature on the inquest report and on a perusal of the inquest report which is recorded in telugu, ttrc first panchayatdhar is yesubabu, ...r.@ JAK J CM-4.Nd930_2014 l5 keyman. In paragraph No.IV of the inrl rest report, Sri Yesubabu, Keyman and Sri Thaneti Wellir.S ton, Sr.\?C, nEunes are reflected. At paragraph No.l5 of in, it is reflected that the deceased had a tick ticket) from Vijayawada to Samalkot for tr [uest report, t (computer rin No.471. Contents of the inquest report reflect that t re deceased could have fallen at Sarnalkot Railway Stat on between Platform No. I and the train, could have susku oed injuries to head and legs. Inquest is attended by thrrx persons, it defies the logic of this Court as to why the I aid inquest report cannot be considered, in which personn( I of Railway Protection Force have signed and the names c i employees of thc Railways were also recorded, who were prr :sent at the time of inquest. In fact, the contents of the inr uest feport give credence to the fact that the fall is accider tal and not otherwise.

29. No Divisional Railway Manager's Fe port (DRM Report) is hled, thcory that the passenger :ould have travelled by any other train is whimsical and .? nciful. The delay by family members for tracing out cannol. )e a reason J,IK J t6 to arrive at a furding and to conclude that the deceased did not travel by train No.471. The said finding is contrary to the evidence on record i.e., deposition of A.W.1 which stood & unrebutted. The train ticket (bearing No.4O7O2224l purchased for passenger train No.471 from Vijayarvada to Samalkot, the body belng found on platform No. I opposite to GRP office, thc FIR, the contents of the inquest report and final report are all pointing tou'ards the accidental fall. The evidence on record has not been appreciated in a proper perspective by the Ttibunal, non-application of mind is evident.

30. For reasons aforesaid, the order, dated 18-08.20O8, by the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, is not sustainable and needs to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Compensati,on as claimed by the applicants/appellants is awarded. Needless to state that the amount clairned by the appellants/applicants i.e., Rs.4,00,000/- shall be paid to the appellants/applicants by thc respondent within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with an interest @ i l 17 IIK J CM,lNogiO tutt 9%o per a_nnum from one month from the dzLl : of accident till the date of deposit The appellants/atr plicants are permitted to withdraw the amount depositr:r t before the Railway Claims Tribunal bY making an ap rlication as required under law. 3 l. Accordingly, the Civil allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellarreous AppeaJ IS Miscellaleous stand closed. applications Pending, if my, shall I; )/-B.SATYAVATHI .IOINT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// S ECTION OFFICER claims rrrbunal, Secunderabad Bench at f ecunderabad.(with To, '' I*t"r53)l'*" 2. 3. 4. Kam/P SI, -'W 9"" 99 to tVts N S Ceetha l\r.tadhurr, Advocate tOpUCt One CC to Ms.G Rukmrnr I Two cD copies sc FoR CENTRAL-Gowito= -lcl HIGH COURT DATED: 2810712025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.930 of 2014 ?a ( rlE S 6 3o 1 t,,' l2 Il) * t i|^Tetsf,lr. c.r} ALLOWING THE GMA 6 &