Vimalbai & Ors. vs Union Of India

Heard.

This appeal is filed by the present appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 23.10.2023 in Claim Application No. OA (IIu)/NGP/148/2017, whereby the claim application filed by the appellants came to be dismissed by the Tribunal.

The appellants, who have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Claims Tribunal, have stated the facts of the present case in brief. It is stated that the appellants, on account of the death of the deceased, namely, Santosh Rajaram Manewar, filed the proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal. According to the appellants, on the night of 16.05.2017, when the deceased was travelling from Basar to Umri after purchasing a valid railway ticket and had boarded Train No. 57593 (Medchal–Hazur Sahib Nanded Passenger Train), he met with an accident.

According to the learned counsel for the appellants, when the deceased boarded the train, there was a heavy rush and, therefore, he was required to stand near the door of the train. While the running train reached near Umri Railway Station at KM No. 391/7-9, the train received a strong jerk, due to which the deceased lost his balance, fell down from the running train and died on the spot. His dead body was found in the morning hours of 17.05.2017, and the same was informed to the claimants. Accordingly, their submission is that the death was caused in an untoward incident and, therefore, they are entitled to compensation.

Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed the entire contention of the appellants by filing a written statement before the Railway Claims Tribunal. According to the respondent, the incident was not an untoward incident; rather, it was a case of negligence on the part of the deceased. According to the respondent, as the deceased himself was responsible for the incident, the respondent-Railway Administration is not liable to pay compensation.

It is further stated that the alleged incident, according to the appellants, took place in the evening hours. The respondent has stated that, as per its records, the railway ticket was purchased by the deceased at about 19:25 hours from Basar Railway Station. The distance between Basar and Umri is approximately 48 kilometres. The train reached Umri Railway Station at 20:48 hours. As such, according to the respondent, the incident might have occurred between these hours. However, the body of the deceased came to the knowledge of the railway workmen only in the morning hours of 17.05.2017.

According to the respondent, during the night hours, several trains passed through the said station, but no one gave any intimation to the Umri Railway Station regarding the body of the deceased lying on the track at KM No. 391/7-8. It is also pointed out that, on the relevant date and at the relevant time, another train, namely, the DRN Goods Train, was passing through Umri Railway Station and, therefore, the train by which the deceased was travelling had to stop for a period of 19 minutes for clearance of the DRN Goods Train at Umri Railway Station. During that period also, no one noticed the body of the deceased. As such, according to the respondent, all these circumstances create doubt and, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to any compensation.

In the light of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, the appellant, who was required to discharge the initial burden of proving that the deceased died in an untoward incident, filed an affidavit before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 16.07.2018. She specifically stated that, being the wife of the deceased, she was aware that the deceased used to travel to Basar from Umri daily for doing labour work. According to her, he regularly used to travel by the Nizamabad Passenger Train and return by the Nanded Night Passenger Train. Therefore, the appellant had discharged the initial burden in the present matter.

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the Railway Administration, an affidavit of Shri Venkateshwar Rao, who was working as a Guard of the Medchal–Nanded Passenger Train, was filed. According to him, there was no intimation to the Umri Railway Station till the morning hours regarding any untoward incident having taken place involving the Medchal– Nanded Passenger Train, which was travelling from Nizamabad to Nanded, and, therefore, according to him, no such untoward incident had occurred as alleged by the appellants.

On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the claim application and dismissed the same on two grounds. The first ground was that the appellants had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train, and the second ground was that no evidence was brought on record to establish that the alleged incident was an untoward incident.

The appellants, who have approached this Court, have raised various grounds challenging the impugned judgment. According to the appellants, the deceased was in possession of a valid railway ticket, which was part of the record before the Railway Tribunal as Document A-58, specifically showing same was obtained to travel from Basar to Umri. The said ticket was verified by the Chief Reservation Inspector of the Railway Department, confirming its validity, and was seized from the body of the deceased. Hence, according to the appellants, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is incorrect.

In respect of the incident, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the wife of the deceased has categorically stated before the Railway Tribunal that the deceased was a daily passenger of the Nizamabad Train and used to return by the Nanded Passenger Train from Basar to Umri. As such, according to the appellants, this fact is sufficient to establish that the deceased was travelling by train to earn his livelihood. The only submission of the respondent in the present matter is that there was no eyewitness to the incident and that the body of the deceased was not noticed by anyone during the night hours, although several trains passed over the said track. Therefore, according to the respondent, as there was no intimation to the Railway Administration, it cannot be said that the accident occurred as a result of the deceased having fallen from the train in which he was travelling.

In the present case, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362, once the initial burden is discharged by the claimant, the burden shifts upon the Railway Administration, which is then required to establish on record that the incident was not an untoward incident. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads thus:

The appellants have established on record, in the present matter, that the deceased was travelling in a train. The incident in question occurred on 16.05.2017. Merely because no one had witnessed the said incident cannot be a ground to deny the claim application filed by the appellants.

The postmortem report, which forms part of the record, shows that the death was caused due to brain haemorrhage. The spot panchanama of the incident shows that the body was lying on the track and also describes the position of the body at the time when the spot inspection was carried out. As such, from the documents available on record, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the accident occurred on the railway track, either as a result of the deceased falling from the railway train in which he was travelling or as a result of being struck by another railway train while crossing the track. However, the fact remains that the accident occurred within the railway premises or on the railway track.

In the circumstances, at the most, it can be said that it was a case of negligence on the part of the deceased while alighting from the train or while crossing the railway track. The question, therefore, arises as to whether such negligence on the part of the deceased would disentitle the appellants from claiming compensation.

In this regard, Section 124A of the Railways Act makes it clear that it is only in cases where the death or injury is caused by suicide or attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, the passenger's own criminal act, an act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity, or a natural cause or disease, as contemplated under the proviso to the said section, that the Railway Administration is absolved from its liability to pay compensation. However, in the present case, the Railway Administration has failed to demonstrate that the deceased had inflicted injury upon himself, attempted to commit suicide, or committed any criminal act. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that, at the most, there was negligence on the part of the deceased while alighting from the train or otherwise coming into contact with the railway track.

The appellants also relied upon the judgment in Jameela and Ors vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2010 SC 3705, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 5, 6 and 7 as under:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the aforesaid judgment that if the act does not fall within any of the categories provided under the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, then the claimants would be entitled to compensation.

In my opinion, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jameela (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present matter. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

The impugned judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 23.10.2023 in Claim Application No. OA (IIu)/NGP/148/2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.

The appellants are held to be entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

The respondent is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of three months directly in the account of the appellants.

The amount so deposited shall be transferred in equal proportion to the bank accounts of the appellants. In case of minor, same should be deposited in the account of natural guardian.

The Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.