N.Kalamma vs Union Of India

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 (for short ‘Act’) aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.03.2019 in OA II (U) No.61 of 2015 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), wherein the claim application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Sri N. Bhadraiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), was dismissed.

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

The brief facts of the case are that applicant No.1 is wife and applicant Nos.2 and 3 are children of the deceased. According to the applicants, the deceased along with his brother-in-law and five fellow workers went to Denduluru near Eluru 20 days prior to the incident to attend a contract welding work at Sri Maruti Agro Industries. After completion of the said work, while returning all seven of them reached Eluru Railway Station in the night of 10.12.2014 and the deceased purchased second class combined journey ticket bearing No.99292357 for super fast train Eluru-Kesamumdram for himself and his friend T. Murali. However, his brother-in-law, O. Nagulu purchased his individual ticket bearing No.B-99292358 to travel from Eluru to Warangal and remaining four fellow passengers purchased group ticket bearing No.B-99292355 to travel from Eluru to Hyderabad. All of them reached Vijayawada by a passenger train and from there they changed and boarded train bearing No.12759 Chennain-Hyderabad Charminar super fast express and left in the early hours of 11.12.2014. While traveling, due to heavy rush of passengers, suddenly the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train at Km.559/22-24 in between Cheruvmadhavaram-Gangineni. Due to which, he sustained fatal head and other multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the applicants filed the present claim application seeking compensation from the respondent for the death of the deceased.

The respondent filed written statement denying the averments of the claim application and contended that there is no cause of action for the applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The respondent also denied the manner of the accidental fall of the deceased from the train and further contended that even as per First Information Report the incident occurred while the deceased was traveling by standing near the door of the compartment, which clearly indicates that the incident must have happened due to the own imprudent, criminal negligence and reckless acts of the deceased, which amounts to self-inflicted injury, which falls under exception (b) and (c) to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. In the said circumstances, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim application.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?

Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependant (s) of the deceased?

Whether the Applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as Claimed?

To what relief?

The applicants, in order to substantiate their claim, examined applicant No.1 as A.W.1 and also got examined A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. On behalf of the respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.R-1 was got marked.

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has dismissed the claim application of the applicants. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

Heard, the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent and perused the entire record.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants is that they have proved their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon the Exs.A-1 to A-13, but the Tribunal without considering the same erred in dismissing the claim application. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.

Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent argued that after considering all the aspects the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application and the interference of this Court is unwarranted and prayed to dismiss the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

Now the point for consideration is as follows:

“Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed for?”

Point:-

This Court perused the documents and evidence placed on record by both the sides. Applicant No.1, who is wife of the deceased, was examined as A.W.1 and she reiterated the contents of the claim application. As, she was not eyewitness to the incident, she got examined one O. Nagulu as A.W.2. A.W.2 deposed that on the date of the incident they have purchased journey ticket and seven people were traveling and everyone was having a valid journey ticket. While so, as there was heavy rush of passengers in their compartment, suddenly, the deceased, who is his brother-in-law slipped and fell down accidentally from running train in between Cheruvumadhavaram and Gangineni Railway stations, due to speed, jolts and sudden jerks of the said running train, as such, he sustained severe injuries. A.W.2 deposed that he saw the said accidental fall of the his brother-in-law and as such, the train was stopped by pulling Alarm Chain by him and all of them got down from the said train and reported the incident to guard of the train. Subsequently, they rushed to the place of incident and found the deceased. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to hospital through 108 ambulance where he was examined and declared dead. Then, A.W.2 informed about the incident to the wife and other family members of the deceased. He also deposed that the Railway Police conducted panchanama over the deceased at the place of occurrence of the incident in his presence and his statement was also recorded. At that time, the Railway police recovered the combined train journey ticket and cash of Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of the deceased.

It is pertinent to state that Ex.A-2 copy of first information report shows that based on the complaint of A.W.2 a case was registered with regard to the incident and investigation was taken up. After completing the investigation, charge sheet under Ex.A-6 was laid. A perusal of charge sheet shows that no foul play was suspected and it was concluded that the death was accidental. A perusal of inquest report under Ex.A-3 also shows that inquest was done in the presence of blood relatives and co-passengers, who were panch witnesses to the inquest report. At the time of inquest, they found Rs.1,000/- and journey ticket No.99292357 dated 10.12.2014, which was super fast general ticket for two persons from Eluru to Kesamudram, in the pocket of the deceased. Further, Ex.A-4 postmortem examination report also shows that the death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries and that the body was brought for postmortem by PC.No.637 of GRPS, Vijayawada on 12.12.2014 at about and the body was identified by him. The postmortem report also reveals that the deceased died about 24 to 36 hours prior to autopsy. Therefore, the above documents abundantly establish that the deceased was traveling in the said train and accidentally slipped from the train and died.

Now, coming to the evidence adduced by respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but Divisional Railway Manager report was got marked under Ex.R-1. A perusal of the said report shows that after investigation it was established that the deceased did not die due to speed, jolt and sudden jerks of the train between Cheruvumadhavaram-Gangieneni Railway station, but he died due to act of his own negligence duly trying to sit at door steps of train bearing No.12759 and due to heavy weight, he lost balance and fell down from running train. Unless there is negligence from their side, it is not possible for any person to fall from the running train. It is also mentioned in the report that valid journey ticket was found with the deceased and on duty guard of train bearing No.12759 informed that a person fell down from running train.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that there is no dispute that the deceased fell down from train and was holding valid journey ticket. Therefore, he can be termed as bona fide passenger, who accidentally fell down from running train and the same is clearly established. Hence, the contention of the learned standing counsel for the respondent railways that the deceased died by his own act of negligence after sitting at door step of general compartment and slipping and falling down due to his heavy weight and that it is not possible for any person to fell down from train without negligence on his part is unsustainable. Furthermore, the respondent railways has not adduced any cogent and convincing evidence to disprove the case set up by the applicants. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from perversity and interference of this Court into the said findings is necessary. The Tribunal has committed error in dismissing the claim application filed by the applicants and the claim application is liable to be allowed by granting compensation to the applicants.

Coming to the quantum of compensation, in case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment i.e., on  26.01.2014, the prevailing basic figure in respect of death case was Rs.4,00,000/-, which has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for death of the deceased.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 22.03.2019 in OA II (U) No.61 of 2015 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, is set aside and the applicants are granted compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The respondent Railways is directed to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the applicants are equally entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.