Sri Radheshayam Soni and Others vs Union of India (UOI)

V. Jagannathan, J.—This appeal is by the applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal and compensation was sought by the husband and children of deceased Lakshmi Devi on the footing that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in train No. 6529 - Udyan Express from Pune to Bangalore City and on the night intervening 27/28.6.2000, said Lakshmi Devi met with an untoward incident or accidental fail in the early hours of 28.6.2000 and following the death of Lakshmi Devi being confirmed after her dead body was identified by her husband, the appellants filed the claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

The said application was contested by the respondent - Southern Central Railway by contending that the death of Lakshmi Devi was on account of she being found mentally unsound and it is also very strange that a person travelling by Poona-Bangalore Udyan Express would get up in the dead of the night at 2.20 a.m. and was found walking along the track. Therefore, the said defence was put up by the railways.

The learned Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal accepted the defence taken by the railways and held that the case of the deceased fell within exception (d) of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and held that the claimants are not entitled for compensation as the case was not one that can be brought within the ambit of "untoward incident" due to accidental fall. The dismissal of the claim application was the result.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent Union of India and perused the records of this case.

The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that no evidence was there to draw the inference that deceased Lakshimi Devi was mentally unsound or that she was suffering from insanity and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have taken shelter under Clause (d) of Section 124A of the Railways Act to dismiss the claim application. Referring to the inquest report, which was heavily relied on in the railways and also accepted by the Tribunal, it was argued that the inquest report cannot he considered as a substantive piece of evidence to show that the deceased was suffering from any mental illness or from insanity. On the other hand, the evidence of the husband, who was examined as A.W. 1, was that the deceased was hale and healthy and the couple had four children and the deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger by purchasing II class ticket which is not disputed by the railways and in the absence of there being evidence indicating any mental illness with which the deceased was found suffering, the burden was on the railways to establish that the case of the deceased fell within Clause (d) of Section 124A of the Railways Act and this burden was not discharged and. on the other hand, the evidence of the husband of the deceased, which remained intact despite cross-examination, ought to have been accepted. Hence, the impugned order be set aside and the appellants be awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- as per schedule to the Act.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent railways supported the findings of the Claims Tribunal and argued that the inquest report repealed that the deceased was suffering from mental illness and, as such, the case of the deceased clearly fell within Clause (d) of Section 124A. Hence, the claim application was rightly dismissed by the Claims Tribunal.

Having thus heard both'' sides and on going through the evidence on record, it is observed that the husband of the deceased was examined as A.W. 1 and in the course of his evidence, he has stated that the deceased was of sound mind and healthy'' and she has brought up four children and she was also managing the affairs of the family till her death. Now here in the evidence of the husband is there any indication of the deceased suffering from any mental illness or from insanity. Even in the cross-examination of A.W. 1, nothing is brought out to discredit his testimony insofar as the deceased being found to be in good mental health.

Though R.W. 1 was examined to show that the dead body of a woman was noticed by him lying on the main track lane at Tatcherla Station, his evidence does not reveal anything about the mental condition of the deceased. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that he did not see the occurrence of the incident.

So far as R.W. 2 is concerned, he was the Deputy Station Superintendent of Garladanne and he also does not speak about the mental condition of the deceased. This witness was not even cross-examined on behalf of the appellants. Despite that, even the examination in-chief of R.W.2 does not throw any light as to the mental condition of the deceased.

The only ground on which the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim application was on the basis of the contents of the inquest report. It is a well settled law that the inquest report can only be taken note of to find out the cause of death and nothing more than that. There is absolutely no evidence even to remotely take the view that the deceased was suffering from any mental illness or from insanity. Even in the cross-examination of A.W.1, no such suggestion was also put to the witness. Under the said circumstances, it has to be held that there was absolutely no positive evidence placed on record to draw the inference that the deceased was suffering from any mental illness or from insanity. Therefore, the question of Clause (d) of Section 124A of the Railways Act being found established does not arise. The Railway Claims Tribunal committed a serious error in not appreciating the evidence from proper angle.

For the aforesaid reasons, when the other farts are not. in dispute viz., that the deceased being a bonafide passenger was travelling with a valid ticket in Udyan Express from Poona to Bangalore and the death also having occurred due to accidental tall from the train, the application for compensation, therefore, could not have been rejected by the Claims Tribunal. The finding recorded being totally perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, the impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside and the appellants, being the husband and children of the deceased, will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- in view of Part-I of the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.

Hence, I pass the following order:

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside. The claim application of the appellants is allowed by awarding Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation. The interest will be payable at 6% from the date of the claim application till the date of this order and if the compensation amount is not paid within three months from the date of receipt of this order, the interest payable will be at 9%.