Aayithi Gangaraju vs Union Of India

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the Order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,  Secunderabad  Bench  (for  brevity,  ‘the  Tribunal’),  in R.P.No.10 of 2009 wherein and whereby, the order dated 24.03.2009  in  O.A.A.No.114  of  2004  and  116  of  2004,  dated 20.09.2010, was dismissed.

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.

The brief facts of the case are that, the applicants who are the sons and married daughter of the deceased-Aayithi Gangayamma (hereinafter will be referred as ‘deceased No.1’), filed OAA No.114 of 2004 seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs and OAA No.116 of 2004 is filed by the parents of the deceased-Aayithi Neelavathi (hereinafter will be referred as ‘deceased No.2’), seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs, as both the deceased died in an untoward incident of fall from a train on 6.4.2004. According to the claimants, the deceased Gangayamma along with her grand daughter Neelavathi had spent six months at her daughter Rajeshwari’s place in Tuni and decided to return Tadepalligudem. Rajeshwari took them to the station, bought a ticket for her mother Gangayamma and a platform ticket for herself. Neelavathi, who is 2 and half years old, did not need a ticket. Rajeshwari sent her mother and niece Neelavathi by train No.472 Rayagad-Vijayawada passenger and went home. While traveling, both Neelavathi and Gangayamma slipped and fell down from the running train, sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot in the early hours of 6.4.2004. The journey ticket of Gangayamma was lost in the accident along with her clothes bag. Hence both the claims.

The respondent-Railways filed written statement in both the applications separately denying the averments of the application and contended that the bodies were found dead in mid-section, there was no evidence that they had traveled by train, there was no untoward incident of fall from train reported by the guard of the train and since even at inquest, there was no ticket and as such, there was no proof that they were bona fide passengers. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues in:

Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.472 Rayagad-Vijayawada passenger travelling from Tuni to Tadepalligudem on 5.4.2004?

Did the deceased die of an untoward incident of fall from the said train?

To what relief?

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. On behalf of respondent-railways, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked.

The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, has dismissed both the applications vide common order. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants in both the applications have filed the review before the Tribunal and the same was also dismissed. Hence the applicants filed the present appeal.

Heard Sri T.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways and perused the record.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that though the applicants proved their case by examining AWs.1 and 2 and relying on the documents under Exs.A.1 to A11, the tribunal without considering the same, has erroneously dismissed the applications and even in review application also, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of AWs.1 and 2 and the documents filed by them applicants. It is further submitted that the Tribunal dismissed the review application alleging that the bodies were not found at a great distance from their home and that traveling up to 8 KMs away from home does not indicate train travel and that the evidence of AW.2 that both the deceased traveled from Tuni to Tadepalligudem by train No. 472 passenger appears to be an after thought. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by awarding the just and reasonable compensation.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Railways submitted that the Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, has rightly dismissed the applications and the review petition also. Hence, interference of this Court is not necessary.

Now the point for consideration is, whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner is sustainable under law?

POINT:

This Court has perused the entire material available on record. The applicant No.2 in OAA No.114 of 2004 and applicant No.1 in OAA No.116 of 2004 was examined as AW.1 and he reiterated the petition averments. He further stated that it was decided by the Railway Police that his daughter A.Neelavathi and his mother A.Gangayamma boarded the Train No.472 Rayagada-Vijayawada passenger at Tuni Railway station in the night of 5.4.2004 holding a passenger train journey ticket from Tuni to Tadepalligudem and while they were traveling both of them slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train in between Prathipadu and Tadepalligudem railway stations at a distance of 8 K.Ms. from his house in the morning of 6.4.2004 due to speed and jerks of the said running train sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot and the journey ticket was lost along with his mother’s clothes bag and money pouch in the train. Admittedly, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. In his cross-examination he deposed that on the third day of her departure he came to know of the incident. His neighbour told him after seeing daily news paper in which there is a photo of his daughter, have expressed the doubt about the incident. Along with some others he went to Tadepalligudem RS to make enquiries and the police showed him the talisman of the baby waist beeds and the clothes of his daughter were shown for identification.

According to AW.2, the deceased-A.Neelavathi is her second brother’s daughter and another deceased A.Gangayamma is her mother. Her brother A.Thatarao/AW.1 is resident of Tadepalligudem and both the deceased came to her house at Rolukunta Village from Tadepalligudem about six months prior to their death. Both the deceased with a view to return to Tadepalligudem went to Tuni Railway station accompanied by her in the night of 5.4.2004, purchased a passenger train journey ticket from Tuni to Tadepalligudem for her mother and a platform ticket for her and she sent them by Train No.472 Rayagada-Vijayawada passenger in General compartment. After giving send off to them, she returned to her village Rolukunta from Tuni after departure of the said train. She further deposed that four days later, she was informed by her brother A.Thatarao about the death of both the deceased as they fell down from running passenger train in between Prathipadu and Tadepalligudem railway stations and succumbed to the injuries and then she went along with her family members and learnt about the accident of her mother and niece as mentioned supra. She informed him and other family members that both the deceased were seen off by her on 5.4.2004 by train No.472 Rayagada-Vijayawada passenger holding train journey ticket from Tuni to Tadepalligudem.

AW.2 in her cross-examination stated that being an illiterate she does not know the dates, month and year of the journey. They started at 5 p.m. at their village and reached Tuni at 7.30 p.m. Her mother proceeded to Tadepalligudem, she do not know by which train they proceeded on that date. Again says it is a Rayagada pass. They boarded in the general compartment which is adjacent to the engine. Five days after the departure of her mother from Tuni RS her brother informed on phone about the accident.

According to Ex.A3 F.I.R., the bodies were found in mid section at KM.539/27-25 by the Keyman in the early morning of 6th April 2004. In Ex.A4 and Ex.A9 Inquest reports, there was no mention of the journey ticket, however, panchas opined that the deceased might have fallen from an unknown train moving from Rajahmundry to Vijayawada in the night or early morning. The bodies were buried without identifying. Since the photos of the bodies were published in the papers, the family members of the deceased contacted the police and recognized the deceased only on 9th or 10th April 2004.

Here it is pertinent to state that the initial burden is on the appellants to prove their claim. Admittedly, no ticket was found from the dead bodies at the time of inquest. Further AWs.1 and 2 are the children of the deceased No.1 and as such, they shall be treated as interested witnesses. Except them, no third party was examined to prove that the deceased purchased the ticket, boarded the train on the date of incident and even nobody watched them while they fallen down from the running train. The clothes bag and pouch of the deceased No.1 was also not seized by the railway police. Deceased No.1 was the mother of the applicants and deceased No.2 was the daughter of one of the applicants, aged two and half years old. When both the deceased died on 5th or 6th April, the applicants approached the police only on 9th or 10th April and there is no proper explanation by the applicants why they kept quite without taking any steps about their whereabouts nor worried about the deceased persons during the said gap, even they have not reached the destiny. Merely because the dead bodies were found near the tracks, it cannot be held that they have travelled in 472 passenger with a valid journey ticket and fallen down from the running train, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Further the Final report or charge sheet is also not filed by the applicants. Even as per Ex.R1 Divisional Railway Manager’s report, either on 5.4.2004 or on 6.4.2004, no driver or guard of any train reported any case of run over or any accidental falling from any train in the section. As there was no ticket found with the deceased, she was not a bona fide passenger as defined in Section 124(a) of Railways Act,2003. Thus, the applicants utterly failed to prove their initial burden of purchasing journey ticket by the deceased, boarded the train and the deceased fallen down from the running train. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal rightly held that both the deceased were not bona fide passengers and they did not die in an untoward incident and as such, the applicants are not entitled for compensation. The Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence of AWs.1 and 2 and the documents filed by them in all aspects and passed well reasoned order. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.