Samudrapu Jayavani, Viz. District vs Union Of India, Orissa

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad in O.A.No.370 of 2006 dt.20.08.2010.

Brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that the appellant is the wife of the deceased Samudrapu Ganeswara Rao who was aged 27 years. On 13.02.2006, the deceased had gone to Rajam to look for employment and on the next day, he was found dead on the railway tracks between Nallimarla and Vizianagaram at Km 810/41-43. A Key man of the railways found the body at about 7.15 A.M. on 14.02.2006 and thereafter, the same was reported to GRP (Government Railway Police) and after the inquest and post-mortem, the body was handed over to his family members.

The wife of the deceased filed an Application before the Railway Claims Tribunal stating that the death of the deceased was due to railway accident and that she is entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. It is stated that after meeting the MRO and MDO at Rajam, the deceased purchased a ticket and boarded the train to return home and on the next day, his body was found on railway tracks and therefore, the death was caused due to railway train accident. In support of her contention that the deceased had boarded the train after purchase of the ticket, her cousin, R. Rambabu, was examined as A.W.2 who confirmed that he had gone with the deceased to Ponduru station, where he purchased a ticket and boarded Howrah - Tirupati Express at 20.20 hours on 13.02.2006. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was giving false evidence only to help the applicant. In his affidavit, he stated that on 14th February, 2006, he came to know of the death of the deceased and after formalities were over, he went to GRP, Palasa to give his statement, but it was not recorded by the police. The Applicant also submitted copies of the FIR, the inquest report, the post-mortem report, all certified by Assistant Tribal Welfare Officer, Kurupam, and the death certificate of the deceased. The FIR mentioned about finding of a body of 40 years old male on the up-line track. The inquest report mentioned that the wife and father-in-law and the husband of the maternal aunt of the deceased were the witnesses examined for the inquest and the injuries found were on the chest, ear, cheek, forehead and head and oozing wounds were there on the body with black grease oil stains. Basing on the FIR, the wounds, the scene of offence, the statements of blood relatives and the inquest report, the Railway Claims Tribunal concluded that the deceased was in a disturbed condition and as Jarajapupet Railway LC gate was closed, he was passing by a pathway used by the public when the gate was closed and was hit by an unknown train accidentally. The post-mortem was conducted on 15.02.2006 at 9.30 A.M. and it also stated that the death was due to multiple ante-mortem injuries and injuries were caused to vital organ brain. It was also recorded that no railway ticket was found from the body and therefore, the Tribunal has concluded that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that his death was an untoward incident. Thus, no compensation was awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal and against this nil award, the applicant is in Appeal before this Court by raising grounds that the Railway Claims Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence produced by the applicant properly.

It is the case of the applicant that the evidence of A.W.2, i.e., to the effect that the deceased purchased a ticket on 13.02.2006 and boarded Howrah - Tirupati Express, is not considered properly. As regards non-finding of the railway ticket from the possession of the deceased, it is submitted that as per the inquest report, the body was dragged on and in that condition the train ticket might have got misplaced and this fact was not considered by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the body was found on railway tracks, is also a fact that the death was caused due to an accident by a train.

Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.L. Rao, vehemently argued in support of these grounds and placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Borra Vijayalakshmi and others 2006 ACJ 162 in support of his contention that where a passenger fell from a running train and sustained fatal injury, the claimants are entitled to compensation. He also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Union of India Vs. Sushila Devi and others 2006 ACJ 806, wherein it was held that where there is no evidence to show that the deceased committed suicide and had accidentally fallen from a running train in between two stations and sustained fatal injuries, the Railway Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Thus, according to him, since it is not reported by the police or the railway authorities that the cause of death is suicide by the deceased, the Railway Claims Tribunal ought not to have rejected the application of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the Railways, Sri J. Ashok Kumar, submitted that in order to award compensation to any deceased in an untoward incident, the passenger has to be a bonafide passenger and in this case, the applicant has not proved that the deceased had purchased a ticket and had travelled in the train when the accident had taken place. Therefore, according to him, compensation has been rightly denied to the applicant.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the body of the deceased was found on railway tracks and the inquest report and the post-mortem report also do not suggest that the death was due to any reason other than an accident involving grievous injuries to the body. The appellant has filed the claim under Sections 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, i.e., compensation on account of untoward incidents. For the purposes of Section 124 and 124A, passenger has been defined as a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989 defines untoward incident to mean-

(1) (i) ......

(ii) ........

(iii) ......

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

Therefore, the first and foremost condition is that the deceased should be a bonafide passenger and the death should be on account of an untoward incident. In the case before this Court, the deceased did not possess any ticket and the only evidence is the oral evidence of the brother-in-law of the deceased who submitted that the deceased had purchased the ticket and boarded the train. This statement has to be corroborated by evidence of untoward incident, which has not been proved in this case. In the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of fall of the deceased from the train was available. Therefore, these decisions are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

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

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also stand dismissed.