1 VS,J CMA_272 of 2021 APHC010437272021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 272/2021 Between: 1. EMANDI SANTAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURAL LABOUR R/O H.NO. 1-25, PADMASHALI STREET, GANGANNAPADU VILLAGE, TERLAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, Rep. by the General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhuvaneswar. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersappellant begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Misc. Appeal, having been aggrieved by the Judgment dt. 16-7-2021 passed in O.A.II (U) No. 132 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Guntur Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 2 VS,J CMA_272 of 2021 1. K KRISHNA BUSHAN CHOWDARY(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA_272 of 2021 JUDGMENT:- Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim application filed by the appellant/applicant in OA II (U)No.132 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench vide judgment dated 16.07.2021, this civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant. 2. For better appreciation of the case, the parties will be hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant is the mother of one Emandi Appa Rao (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟). It is the case of the applicant that on 19.03.2013, the deceased went to Bondapalli village to invite his younger sister and brother in law to a festival to be performed in his village and while returning to Bobbili along with his brother in law by name Srisetty Krishna, they purchased a railway ticket from Gajapathi Nagaram railway station and boarded train No.58538; while travelling, after crossing Donkinavalasa railway station between KM No.417/10-12 posts, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down under the train and his body was cut into pieces and died on the spot. The applicant, being the mother of the deceased, filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A and 125 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased for the alleged accidental death on 20.03.2013. 4. The application was opposed by the respondent – Union of India represented by General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhuvaneswar, averring that there is no cause of action for the applicant to seek claim as the alleged incident does not fall within the ambit of Section 4 VS,J CMA_272 of 2021 123(C) or Section 124A of the Indian Railway Act, 1989 and requested to dismiss the 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, the applicant got examined herself as A.W.1 and the cousin of the deceased was examined as A.W.2. The applicant got marked Exs.A1 to A7. The respondent got marked the Divisional Railway Manager‟s report as Ex.R1, however, no oral evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal, after going through the material available before it, came to a conclusion that the manner in which the body of the deceased was found seems possible only when a person is hit and run over by a train and that the applicant has failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the deceased died due to an untoward incident. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application by way of the impugned judgment, aggrieved by which, the applicant has approached this Court by way of this appeal on the ground that though the brother in law of the deceased died pending trial, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that he has accompanied the deceased to railway station and witnessed the deceased purchasing a ticket to Bobbili and that the Tribunal ought to have observed that the applicant discharged 5 VS,J CMA_272 of 2021 her burden by way of adducing oral and documentary evidence and hence, it is for the Railways to prove the same. 8. Heard Sri. 8. Heard Sri. P.L. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. K. Krishna Bhushan Chowdary, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 9. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The learned tribunal without appreciating the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act, simply dismissed the claim of the appellant. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed. 10. Learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent would contend that the deceased was not possessing valid railway journey ticket at the time of untoward incident. 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 appellant herein. The learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim made by the appellant 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 Appellant would contend that this matter is squarely covered by an order of this Court in 6 VS,J CMA_272 of 2021 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 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 appellant proved that her son died due to 1 Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023 7 VS,J CMA_272 of 2021 an untoward incident occurred on the fateful day and the same is also established from the chief examination affidavit filed by P.W.2. None was examined on behalf of the respondents to rebut the evidence of the appellant. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the deceased died in the untoward incident while travelling in a train. 15. In the light of judgment of “Union of India v. Radha Yadav2”, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that “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 appellant has drawn the attention of this Court with regard 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; 2 (2019) 3 SCC 410 8 VS,J CMA_272 of 2021 (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 (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. 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 applicant has discharged her 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: 9 VS,J CMA_272 of 2021 “ 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 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 16.07.2021 passed in OA II (U)No.132 of 2013 by the learned Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The respondent shall pay the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellant/applicant 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:15.04.2026. Gss