APHC010226482023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 328/2023 Between: 1. KOLLI LAKSHMI, W/O LATE K VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O. D.NO.9-33-33, POTHINA SRINIVASARAO STREET NEAR SRINIVASA MAHAL KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA ,URBAN KRISHNA DISTIRCT ,ANDHRA PRADESH 2. K. DURGA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE K, VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. PVT EMPLOYEE R/O. D.NO. 9-33-33 POTHINA SRINIVASARAO STREET NEAR SRINIVASA MAHAL KOTHAPET ,VIJAYAWADA ,URBAN KRISHNA DISTRICT ,ANDHAR PRADESH. 3. K. VIJAYA GOWRI, W/O. K. SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O. D.NO. 9-33-33 POTHINA SRINIVASARAO STREET NEAR SRINIVASA MAHAL KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA ,URBAN KRISHNA DISTRICT ,ANDHAR PRADESH 4. K. SUJATHA, W/O. K. RAMACHANDRA RAO@ RANBABU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O. D.NO. 9-33- 33 POTHINA SRINIVASARAO STREET NEAR SRINIVASA MAHAL KOTHAPET ,VIJAYAWADA ,URBAN KRISHNA DISTRICT ,ANDHAR PRADESH 5. B. LALITHA, W/O. B. SATYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O. D.NO. 9-33-33 POTHINA SRINIVASARAO STREET NEAR SRINIVASA MAHAL 2 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA ,URBAN KRISHNA DISTRICT ,ANDHAR PRADESH ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. By its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is filed to set-aside the order dated 23-12-2022 in OA. II (u ) No. 141 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, and consequently allow the appeal. 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 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.328 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful claimants preferred present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”), assailing the judgment, dated 23.12.2022, passed in Claim Application No.OA II (U) No.141 of 2021 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Guntur, (for short, “the Tribunal”), rejecting their claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest for a case of death. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) The claimants are wife and children of the deceased. The deceased was working as Clerk (Gumastha) at Rajiv Gandhi Wholesale Market, Vijayawada. In course of routine work, he was asked by the employer to collect amounts from one of the creditors at Gudur, therefore, he was dropped by his brother-in-law at Railway Station on 07.01.1998 at about 2.30 a.m. to catch train No.6040 Varanasi – Chennai Express. His brother-in-law stated to have purchased ticket at 4 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 Vijayawada Railway Station and got the deceased boarded the train to proceed to Gudur. En route deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from train at K.M.No.228/29-31 Posts in between Tettu and Kavali Railway Station. He sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Upon noticing of the body, Direct Track Maintainer on Duty intimated the same to Railway Police, and accordingly, F.I.R. came to be registered. Inquest was conducted in the presence of panchayatdars. Later, the body was sent to Kavali Government Hospital for postmortem examination. The police have ultimately, after conducting investigation, submitted certificate stating that the deceased died on account of accident and it was an accidental death. Basing on the aforesaid statement of fact, present claim has been preferred under Section 16 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest. (b) Initially, the claim was preferred before the Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad and later, the same got transferred to Amaravati Bench at Guntur and has been renumbered as O.A. II (U) No.141 of 2021. (c) The respondent-Railways filed counter opposing the claim inter alia stating that even as per F.I.R., the incident was reported as run over case and not a bona fide accident and further that as per the D.R.M. Report, the head was cut and separated from body and lying in middle 5 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 of up-line track indicating that it is not a case of accidental fall, rather it is clearly a negligent act while trying to get down from running train. It was also pleaded that it is a case of suspicious death, therefore, would not fall within the parameters of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Act to maintain claim. It was further pleaded that deceased did not possess valid journey ticket, therefore, cannot be considered to be a bona fide passenger for claiming compensation. (d) Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident? 3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed? 4. To what relief?” (e) In support of the claim, 1st claimant - wife of deceased was examined as AW.1 and brother-in-law of deceased was examined as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of Railways, none were examined, however, got marked Ex.R.1 - D.R.M. Report. (f) The Tribunal proceeded to examine second issue at first, which essentially dealt with the aspect whether the deceased was bona fide passenger and that he died as a result of untoward incident. After considering the evidence of AW.1, AW.2 and Exs.A1 to A10, the Tribunal has answered the said issue negatively. A specific finding has been rendered that the deceased did not travel by train and nor did he die in 6 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 an untoward incident. To come to aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal has while disbelieving the evidence of claimants, in particular AW.2, and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, placed much reliance on report of D.R.M. – Ex.R1. In view of aforesaid findings on second issue, the Tribunal refrained from considering issues 1 and 3 holding that they were redundant. Assailing the order of Tribunal rejecting the claim for compensation, present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Ms.N.S.Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel, for respondent Railways. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly canvassed the following contentions: (a) That by filing affidavit of AW.1 and AW.2, who were wife and brother-in-law of deceased, by narrating the manner and adverting facts in which the deceased died, they have discharged the initial burden. Therefore, the burden resultantly then shifted to the respondent Railways to disprove the said factual aspects. However, despite claimants discharging the initial burden of proof, the Tribunal, rather than examining the issue by shifting the burden on Railways, concluded that claimants have not demonstrably established the aspect of deceased travelling in the train and occurrence of death. 7 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 (b) That, since report of D.R.M., dated 27.09.2021, as envisaged under Rule 7 of Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (for short, “the Rules”), came to be submitted much belatedly and that too nearly 20 years after occurrence of accident, the Tribunal could not have taken cognizance rather placed heavy reliance on the same. The Tribunal’s mind was clearly weighed by report, which suggested that no ticket was found with the deceased during inquest, he could not be treated as a bona fide passenger, and further that as the deceased's corpus was found with head being separated from body lying in the middle of up-line track, the incident cannot be an accidental fall from running train. In support of both these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court S.Ranganayakulu v. Union of India, rep. by GM/SC Rly, Secunderabad1. 6. On the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent Railways tried to sustain the order under challenge by contending that the Tribunal has, on exhaustive consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, rendered specific findings of fact, which cannot be found fault with. Inasmuch as the claimants failed to establish the aspect of deceased travelling by subject 1 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3282 8 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 train and the subsequent registration of F.I.R. and inquest report clearly noted the incident to be that of a run over, the Tribunal rightly has come to conclusion that this is not a case of untoward incident. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be rejected. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. The important aspects required to be kept in mind for the purpose of deciding the claims falling under Section 16 of the Act are whether the injured or deceased falls within the definition of bona fide passenger, and if so, what is the degree of proof and equally, on whom the burden lies to establish such relevant facts, and whether the accident occurred on account of untoward incident. Law on these aspects is no more res integra and fairly settled. 9. In Union of India v. Rina Devi2, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering whether presence of a body near railway track is enough to maintain a claim qua the definition of passenger and also dealing with the aspect of discharge of burden of proof, held as follows: “29. 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 2 (2019) 3 SCC 572 = 2018 ACJ 1441 9 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which 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.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India3, following the aforesaid judgment, held as follows: “15. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court is reproduced below : (SCC p. 588, para 29) “29. 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 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.” (emphasis supplied) 16. In the present case, the appellant had duly filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which showed that the deceased was travelling on the train and that his death 3 (2024) 9 SCC 656 10 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 was caused by a fall during the course of his travel. The burden of proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in question was not rebutted.” 11. Coming to the aspect of whether principle of strict liability applies to the cases falling under the Indian Railways Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rina Devi’s case2, held as under: “25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of “self-inflicted injury” would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on “no fault theory”. We may in this connection refer to the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 12 SCC 398 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1443 : (2017) 13 Scale 652] laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on “no fault theory” under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an “untoward incident” entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.” 12. The requirement of conducting enquiry immediately after occurrence of incidents, enabling the Tribunal to decide the aspect of compensation, emanates from the scheme of Rules made under the Rules. Rule 7 of the said Rules postulates that once an incident has been reported by Station Superintendent, under Rule 6, the Officer of the Force is mandatorily to carry out investigation, which includes obtaining information about untoward incident after recording statement of additional witnesses if so required and in the process by collecting 11 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 any other evidence required in the circumstances of the case, and shall submit the report to Divisional Security Commissioner of Force within 60 days. Once such report is submitted on time to the Divisional Security Commissioner, he shall, in turn, submit the same to the Divisional Railway Manager within 15 days thereafter, which shall aid the Tribunal to decide the claims. Language of Rule 7 came to be considered and interpreted by Kerala High Court in Union of India v. A. Geetha4, which followed the judgment of the Division Bench of the very same court, and observed in para.13 and 14 as under: “13. The dictum in the decision supra rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one among us, was a constituent member, is also relevant in the context and is extracted hereinbelow:— “8. We have considered all the relevant inputs. To us it appears that Chap.13 of the Railways Act reflects the vibrant compassion of the legislature in favour of the victims of untoward incidents that take place during the operation of the Railways. Even though there is no specific liability known to law on established legal principles obliging the railways to compensate the victim of such untoward incidents, law declares that Railways shall compensate the victims. More than enforcement of a legal right, the statutory provision recognizes compassion and concern which the Railway administration must show to the unfortunate victims of the untoward incidents. An anxious perusal of the relevant statutory provisions and the rules must convince that the framers of the statute and the rules did not reckon the proceedings as an adversarial litigative process at all. If there be any semblance of doubt on this aspect it will be appropriate to frequent oneself with the stipulations of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2007). R.7 to 10 clearly show that the burden is on the local police and the officers of the force to conduct an enquiry/investigation into the cause of the incident and come to appropriate conclusion. To us it appears that the provisions clearly reveal due recognition and acceptance of 4 2018 ACJ 941 12 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 the helplessness of the claimants who may be far far away from the scene/venue of the incident and consequentially incapable of adducing very compelling evidence in support of their claim. The realistic acceptance of the plight of the victims is perfectly clear from the mechanism stipulated for enquiry/investigation under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. The burden really is not placed entirely on the shoulders of the victims or claimants. But, the burden is placed on the shoulders of the Railway and its officials to conduct a proper enquiry to ascertain whether claimants are really entitled to amounts or not.” 14. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the applicants failed to discharge the burden to establish their claim would not sustain. As disclosed from the dictum, the burden is on the shoulders of the Railway and its officials and they have to discharge the same by conducting appropriate enquiry into the cause of the incident. In the case on hand, neither the Railway nor its Officials seem to have conducted an enquiry of the nature and it is highly improper for them to blame the claimants for their inaction.” 13. Further, even the Hon’ble Apex Court considered Rule 7 of the Rules in Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South East Central Railway5, and observed as follows: “3. Though Rule 27 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) mandates the Railway Authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident, admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before RCT on 27-2-2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23-4-2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased de-trained from the moving train at D Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railways was accepted by RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal i.e. FAO No. 535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of RCT. The High Court has dismissed [Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. South- East Central Railways, 2016 SCC OnLine Ori 1028] the same 5 2018 ACJ 1460 13 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 by cryptic and non-speaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award and the reasons assigned in support of the same, do not warrant any interference. 4. It is in these circumstances, the appellants are before us in these proceedings via Article 136 of the Constitution. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which warrants payment of compensation whenever an untoward incident occurs whether or not such an incident has occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. We are informed that, at the material time, compensation payable under the said provision was Rs 4 lakhs.” 14. Applying aforesaid discussed judgments and ratio laid down therein to the facts of the present case, it has to be now seen whether the claimants have discharged their burden of proof in demonstrating that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he slipped and fell down from train, which amounted to an untoward incident. AW.1 and AW.2 have filed respective affidavits stating the facts and averting to the attending incident happened, which showed that deceased had boarded train at Vijayawada and, after travelling over train for some distance, he slipped and fell down from running train, causing death. Both deceased boarding the train and also the occurrence of death during the course of travel are fortified by aforesaid affidavits and also the F.I.R. and inquest 14 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 report. Even the police have later submitted certificate under Ex.A3 and death certificate was issued under Ex.A4 by M.R.O., certifying the death. The Tribunal, however, being not satisfied with the aforesaid evidence has strangely tried to test the dichotomy between evidence of AW.1 and AW.2 to cull out the discrepancies in their evidence. As there seems to be certain discrepancies in their evidence, in particular, AW.1 spoke that she came to be intimated of death by employer of deceased and whereas AW.2, brother in law of deceased, deposed that he was informed of death by AW.1, therefore, in the absence of examination of the employer, who stated to have informed AW.1 at the earliest point of time, an inference was drawn that a valid piece of evidence was being retained. Resultantly, Tribunal has come to a far-reaching conclusion that the deadbody found at the railway track and the deceased herein were completely different, and only for the purpose of present claim, G.R.P. Police in collusion with the claimants, have tried to fabricate the evidence to make believe the death of unknown person to be that of the deceased herein. It also tried to justify aforesaid conclusion on presumptive basis that the claimants have not produced Post Mortem report and also the original of Ex.A4. Even the said death certificate shows that the place of death to be Maddurupadu . Therefore, a natural death was sought to be portrayed as an accidental death. 15 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 15. These findings of fact recorded by Tribunal in opinion of this Court clearly are perverse. At first instance, when the claimants have filed affidavits of AW,1 and AW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4, the initial burden to show that the deceased has boarded train and died in an untoward incident stands established. However, the same is subject to the rebuttal evidence from the Railways. The Railways, on the other hand, merely produced Ex.R.1 DRM Report. The accident has occurred on 07.01.1998, whereas the investigation and enquiry report came to be issued on 27.09.2021. The object and purport of enquiry and report to be furnished as contemplated under the scheme of Rules is to find out the true facts and whether untoward incident occurred or not, and whether such accident has occurred in any wrongful act, neglect, or default on the part of the Railways to be ascertained. Failure to conduct enquiry as mandated by Rules and translating the same into proper report, on time, is in clear violation of the statutory Rules. Therefore, such belated enquiry and report is no report in the eye of law and the same cannot be taken cognizance of. Therefore, the only rebuttal evidence of Railways pales into insignificance. Resultantly, when there is no rebuttal evidence, the claim stands clearly established beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal, in fact, has proceeded on clear presumptions and assumptions in coming to the conclusion that this is a case of impersonation based on fabricated evidence to pass off the 16 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 death of an unknown person who died in a rail accident as that of the deceased. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to suggest the same nor even it is the pleaded case of the respondent Railways. The police certificate under Ex.A3 clearly stated that after registration of crime and upon enquiry and examination, the case has been treated as an accidental death and further, under Ex.A4, the M.R.O. has issued death certificate certifying that the deceased died on 07.01.1998 and the same has been registered at Maddurupadu village. The Tribunal has doubted genuineness of these two exhibits. The Railways have not taken any such stand nor the death was disputed. All along it was their contention that the death was on account of run over by train and there was negligence on the part of the deceased while getting down running train. However, no evidence was placed in support of the said claim. The death certificate, which is exhibited under Exc.A4, has shown place of death as Maddurupadu. The reference of place of death to Maddurupadu village assumes significance as the accident and corpus of deceased was found within the limits of said village as could be seen from the inquest report and also the statement of Direct Track Maintainer as captured in DRM Report. Therefore, this Court is convinced that claimants have clearly demonstrated that the deceased boarded the train at Vijayawada and he died because of slip and fall while the train was in motion. 17 CGR, J. C.M.A. No.328 of 2023 16. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimants have clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased died in an untoward incident which happed on 07.01.1998 and as he being a bona fide passenger, the claimants, therefore, are entitled to the compensation. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the Appeal stands allowed by allowing the claim of compensation. The appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim application till its realisation. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000, then the appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. Aforesaid amount of compensation is directed to be paid by the respondent Railways within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any in this case, shall stand closed _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:23.09.2025. cs