1 VS,J CMA_52 of 2021 APHC010074892021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 52/2021 Between: 1. M.VANAMMA, W/O LATE M.YERRAKAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC- DAILY LABOUR D.NO. 2-348/44, MULAPALEM VILLAGE BAPATLA GUNTUR DIST PIN 533 005 2. MARIMMA, W/O BEZZAM VINDO AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS OCC- DAILY LABOUR D.NO. 2-348/44, MULAPALEM VILLAGE BAPATLA GUNTUR DIST PIN 533 005 3. M.ANURADHA, D/O LATE M.YERRAKAIAH AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS OCC- DAILY LABOUR D.NO. 2-348/44, MULAPALEM VILLAGE BAPATLA GUNTUR DIST PIN 533 005 4. M.REVATHI, D/O LATE M.YERRAKAIAH AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS OCC- STUDENT D.NO. 2-348/44, MULAPALEM VILLAGE BAPATLA GUNTUR DIST PIN 533 005 5. M.ANUNDBABU, S/O LATE M.YERRAKAIAH AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS OCC- STUDENT D.NO. 2-348/44, MULAPALEM VILLAGE BAPATLA GUNTUR DIST PIN 533 005 6. M.MANICHAND BABU, S/O LATE M.YERRAKAIAH AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS OCC- STUDENT D.NO. 2-348/44, MULAPALEM VILLAGE BAPATLA GUNTUR DIST PIN 533 005 ( APPLICANT NO. 3 TO 6 ARE MINORS REP BY T MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 2 VS,J CMA_52 of 2021 APPLICANT NO.1 ) ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. By its The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against orderspleased to set-aside the order dated 06-05-2020 in 0.A II (U) No.182 of 2011 on the file of the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, and consequently allow the appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA_52 of 2021 JUDGMENT:- Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim application filed by the appellants/applicants in OA/II(u) 182 of 2011 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench vide judgment dated 06.05.2020, this civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants. 2. For better appreciation of the case, the parties will be hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants are the wife and children of one M. Yerrankaiah (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟). The deceased was a clarinet instrumentalist in a band party and on 17.11.2010, in order to return to Guntur district after completion of his work in Chennai, he reached Chennai Central railway station along with fellow band party members and purchased II class superfast express ticket and boarded train No.12656 (Chennai – Ahmedabad Navjeevan express); the same was informed to his wife. Enroute, due to heavy rush of passenger, the deceased fell down from the train at KM No.305/26 and was run over and dragged by another train bearing No.12507 due to which he died on the spot. Seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the accidental death of the deceased in the alleged untoward incident occurred on 17.11.2010, the claimants filed an application before the Tribunal. 4. The respondent – South Central Railway contested the claim application by filing a written statement denying the averments of the applicants and by stating that the applicants have no cause of action as their claim does not fall under Section 123(c) or Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. It further contended that no railway ticket has been found with the deceased and there is no eye witness to support the fall of 4 VS,J CMA_52 of 2021 the deceased from train No.12656 and was run over by train No.12507. Hence, requested the Tribunal to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident? 3. Whether Applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief? 6. During the course of trial, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the claimants; the Divisional Railway Manager‟s report was marked as Ex.R1 on behalf of the respondent. 7. The Tribunal, after going through the material available before it, came to a conclusion that no guard or loco pilot notice fall of any passenger or an untoward incident; that no ticket was found with the deceased; that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger even as per divisional railway manager‟s report. Hence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the applicants by way of the impugned judgment, challenging which, the applicants have filed the present appeal. 8. Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. V. Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 9. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was 5 VS,J CMA_52 of 2021 not a bonafide passenger. The learned tribunal without appreciating the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act, simply dismissed the claim of the appellants. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that the deceased was not possessing valid railway journey ticket at the time of accident. Therefore he cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. The claim does not fall under Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The inquest is very clear that the deceased was run over by any train or that it could be suicide, but that the deceased did not fall from the subject train. Therefore there is no fault or lapse on the part of the railways in the alleged mishap; the Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants herein. The learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim made by the appellants after considering the submissions of respondent. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed. 11. Perused the record. 12. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellants would contend that this matter is squarely covered by an order of this Court in C.M.A.No.17 of 2020 dated 29.09.2023, wherein this court following the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Kamukayi & Ors. V. Union of India and Ors”1, held as follows: “This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analyzing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India and the judgments of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India and 1 Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023 6 VS,J CMA_52 of 2021 also considered the judgment of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India6 and in para 29 concluded as thus- “We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828 (2019) 12 SCC 391 can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” 13. In Rina Devi’s case cited supra, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that any person found dead or injured on railway premises is presumed to be a bona fide passenger unless the railway administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse. 14. In the instant case, the burden of proof shifts on the Respondent/ Railways, as the appellants proved that the deceased died due to an untoward incident occurred on the fateful day. None was examined on behalf of the respondents to rebut the evidence of the appellants. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the deceased died in the untoward incident while travelling in a train. 15. In “Union of India v. Radha Yadav2”, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that: 2 (2019) 3 SCC 410 7 VS,J CMA_52 of 2021 “because death is proved due to outcome of untoward incident of the deceased being a bona fide passenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded.” 16. During hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 123 and also 25 (c) of the Railway Act, 1989, which deals with “untoward incident”, and the same reads as under: Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989 123. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in section 124; (b) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:— (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger. 25 [(c) “untoward incident” means— (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or 8 VS,J CMA_52 of 2021 (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the material available on record and as per the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme court in Kamukayi‟s case (supra), it can be observed that the respondent failed to establish that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger. The applicants have discharged their burden by filing an affidavit with relevant facts, hence the burden shifts on the Railways. The amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries as per the schedules in Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016. So far as the interest part is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent relied on Common Order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.1074 of 2018, wherein this Court at Para 8 held as follows: “ However, in a subsequent Judgment referred above, the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the payment of interest and payment of enhanced compensation, was pleased to observe that: In case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs. 4,00,000/-. If after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs. 8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claim would be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/-. If however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-, the compensation would 9 VS,J CMA_52 of 2021 be in terms of figure in excess of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment to the extent possible”. 18. In view of the aforesaid order, the claim is restricted to Rs. 8,00,000/- only. The amount of compensation payable in respect of death of the deceased to the applicants is as per the schedule in Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016. 19. Following the decisions cited supra, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2020 passed in OA/II(u) 182 of 2011 by the learned Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The respondent shall pay the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellants/applicants herein within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:08.04.2026. Gss