Jarina Sultana v. Union of India

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.497 of 2005 ORAL JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order made in O.A.A.No.302 of 1999 on the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder the claim petition filed by respondents-applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Mohammad Shujauddin Ansari, who died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the Train, was allowed. Appellant is South Central Railway and respondents are applicants-claimants. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the O.A.A. Applicants filed application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of Indian Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of deceased Mohammad Shujauddin Ansari who is alleged to have died due to accidental fall from the train. According to the applicants, the deceased Mohammad Shujauddin Ansari went to Nidadavole Railway Station from Kankipadu to his in-law’s house 20 days prior to the accident. While returning on 1.11.1999, the deceased accompanied by his father-in-law Ghouse Mohiuddin Ansari went to Nidadavole Railway Station, purchased two journey tickets from Nidadavole to Gannavaram and boarded Train No.474 Kakinada-Tirupati passenger in general compartment. During the course of journey, the deceased Shujauddin Ansari while he was going to toilet slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train due to jerks of the train at K.M. No.482/07 between Eluru and Vatlur Railway stations and sustained severe multiple fracture injuries and died on the spot. The Respondent-Railway filed counter denying the averments made in the application and inter alia contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and further no alleged fall was reported or noticed by the Guard of the Train at the place of the alleged incident. The applicants are put to strict proof that they are the dependants of the deceased. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Mohd. Shujauddin Ansari?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger by the Train No.474 Kakinada-Tirupati passenger traveling from Nidadavole to Gannavaram on 1.11.1999?

3. Whether the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train between Eluru and Vatluru Railway station?

4. To what relief? In support of the case of applicants, first applicant filed her affidavit as A.W.1 and Ghouse Mohiuddin (father-in-law of the deceased) also filed affidavit as A.W.2 and marked documents Exs.A1 to A5. On the other hand, respondent-Railway filed the affidavit of Guard Veerabhadra Rao as R.W.1 and filed Ex.R1-Guard’s rough journal. On a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Railway Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicants are the dependants of the deceased and the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No.474 Kakinada-Tirupathi passenger traveling from Nidadavole to Gannavaram on 1.11.1999. It was further held that the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the Train, therefore applicants are entitled for compensation and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent-Railways preferred the present appeal. The facts are not much in dispute. In the inquest report Ex.A2, it was noted that the body of the deceased was found at K.M. No.482/07 between Eluru and Vatlur Railway stations and valid tickets were available with A.W.2 who was traveling along with deceased. According to the applicants, the deceased and A.W.2 were traveling in the said train. The passengers of the train shouted saying that some person fell down between Eluru and Vatlur Railway Stations. As soon as this incident occurred, A.W.2 searched the entire railway compartment and found that his son-in-law (deceased) was missing. He was not sure as to the person who fell down from the train was his son-in-law. However, he got down in the next station and informed the Station Master saying that his son-in-law was missing and the person, who fell down between Eluru and Vatlur Railway stations could be his son-in-law. Immediately, the Station Master enquired and received information that at K.M. No.482/07 one dead body was found and thereafter inquest was conducted and at the time of inquest, father-in-law of the deceased produced tickets and they were noted in the inquest report i.e. at the earliest point of time. However, the contention of the Railways is that the Guard of the Train had not informed as to any incident being occurred between Eluru and Vatlur Railway Stations and the tickets were planted one and that if really the father-in-law (AW2) had traveled along with deceased, he could have pulled the chain and stopped the train. Since such an attempt was not made, it must be deemed that the deceased was not even a passenger. It is unfortunate that the Railways have taken such a stand. It is the case of applicants that the deceased and A.W.2 both were traveling in the said train and the deceased while he was going to toilet slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train due to jerks at K.M. No.482/07 between Eluru and Vatlur Railway stations. The passengers in the train shouted saying that some person fell down and immediately A.W.2 searched the entire compartment and found that his son-in-law (deceased) was missing. He got down in the next station and informed the Station Master about the missing of his son-in-law. In the course of events, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the father-in-law planted the tickets and he was also not a bona fide passenger. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal on all the issues require no interference by this Court. The CMA is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the CMA is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 3.9.2010 DA