IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 285 OF 2021 Between: 1. Uluru Nallappa, W/o. Uluru Kadirappa late, aged about 71 Years, cooli, R/o. D.No. 7-184, Durgamma Street, Pamidi Village and Mandal, Ananthapuram District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Uluru Narasamma @ Chinnamadula Narasamma, W/o. Chinnamadula Srinivasulu, Late, , aged about 43 Years, cooli, R/o. D.No. 7-184, Durgamma Street, Pamidi Village and Mandal, Ananthapuram District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS AND Union of India, South Central Railway, Through General Manager, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, Against the Judgment and decree of the Court of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi in OAII(U) No.321 of 2014. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and t he material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Venkatesulu, Advocate for the Appellants and V. Hemantha Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent. The Court doth order and Decree as follows : - 1. That the appeal be and is here by Allowed. 2. That the Judgment dt.23.08.2021 passed by the Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Guntur in OA II (U) No.321 of 2014 be and is here by set aside. 3. That the respondent Railways shall pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellant Nos.1 and 2, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. 4. That the Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 being husband and daughter of the deceased are entitled to receive equal shares along with interest accrued thereon. 5. That they are permitted to withdraw this respective shares of the compensation. 6. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. > ■ Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Registrar/Administrative Officer, Railway Claims Tribunal, Guntur. 2. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr A HIGH COURT DATED:21/04/2025 DECREE CMA.No.285 of 2021 St g( 2 2SEP2025 ALLOWING THE CMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 285 OF 2021 Appeal Under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Decree in OAII(U) No.321 of 2014 dated.23.08.2021 on the file of the Court of the Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravati Bench at Amaravati. Between: 1. Uluru Nallappa, W/o. Illuru Kadirappa late, aged about 71 Years, cooli, R/o. D.No. 7-184, Durgamma Street, Pamidi Village and Mandal, Ananthapuram District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Illuru Narasamma @ Chirinamadula Narasamma, W/o. Chinnamadula Srinivasulu, Late, , aged about 43 Years, cooli, R/o. D.No. 7-184, Durgamma Street, Pamidi Village and Mandal, Ananthapuram District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS AND Union of India, South Central Railway, Through General Manager, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G. VENKATESULU Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: Judgment THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.285 of 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Application No.OAII(U) No.321 of 2014 dated 23.08.2021. 2. The present appeal preferred by the appellants/applicants, who are husband and daughter of Illuri Husenamma (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’), against the respondent-Railways. IS one 3. The case of the applicants, in the application before the Tribunal, is that: i). On 10.08.2014 at about 06.30 p.m., the deceased left her house by informing that she is going to Guntakal by train to see her brother. But, they came to know that she did not reach Guntakal and they searched for her. at about 09.00 A.M., Km.No.243/2-3 in between Kallur-Khadarpet Railway Station, found the dead body of the deceased. On the information given by the Station Manager, Anantapur, the GRP at Anantapur registered a case in Cr.No.37 of 2014. ii). On 11.08.2014 at 2 iii). On 12.08.2014, they came to know by Newspapers that one unknown women dead body was found by duty Keymen beside the railway track. Then, they approached the railway police and identified the dead body as the deceased. After completion of postmortem examination, police handed over her dead-body to the relatives. iv). The deceased travelled with a valid journey ticket and fell down accidentally from running train and the case is referred as accidental death. Being legal representatives, they claiming compensation from the respondent Railways on account of death of deceased in an untoward incident. The Respondent-Railway filed written statement before 4. the Tribunal denying the averments in the petition and pleaded as follows: There is no cause of action for the applicants as the claim does not fall under Section 123(c) or Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989; that as per the 3 paragraph No.4 of the inquest report, there was no journey ticket found with the dead body of the deceased; that mere finding of a dead body on the railway track will not constitute any right to the applicants to file a case against the railway administration, for claiming the compensation; that there is no eye witness to say that the deceased travelled in the train and accidentally fall from the same, thereby, prays to dismiss the claim application. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry 5. basing on the material; 1.Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependent(a) 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? and 3.Whether the Applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief? In the course of enquiry, on behalf of the applicants. 6. A.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.7 were exhibited. 4 On behalf of the respondent/Railways, none were examined, however, Ex.R.l Divisional Railway Manager’s Report was marked. 7. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the death of the deceased no way matches with the accidental fall from train No.56503, amounting to accidental fall within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, held that the claim application of the applicants was dismissed. 8. It is against the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the applicants. 9. Heard Sri G.Venkatesulu, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent- railways. 10. Sri G.Venkatesulu, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submits that deceased purchased a journey ticket at Pamidi Railway Station in the presence of A.W.2 and travelled in the train; that accidentally fell down from 5 the train, resulted she died on the spot; that non-recovery of the journey ticket is not fatal to the case, thereby the applicants entitled for compensation from the railways. are 11. Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent-railways submits Tribunal after considering the entire material dismissed the application and that the on record, rightly as such there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, dismiss the present appeal. prays to 12. Now, the point that arises for determination is : Whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent with what relief ? 13. POINT: In order to determine the said facts, it is to be answered (i).whether the deceased a bonafide passenger in train in question, (ii).whether he died in the result of untoward incident was accidentally fall from the said deceased having ticket at the time of travel the applicarits^ppellants got examined A.Ws.l and 2. or train, and (iii).whether the and lost in accident. 6 14. Learned eounsel for the appellants that the case consistently states was registered by G.R.P., Anantapur based report of Station Manager at Anantapur and thereafter information of death of deceased i on a only the the railway precincts have been communicated to the applicants by publication m of the same in Newspapers. Learned counsel for the appellants also states that the Tribunal ought to have taken 15. consistently cognizance of the fact that the deceased purchased valid journey ticket and said ticket said to be purchased in the presence of A.W.2 by Mange Sunkanna and she boarded in the passenger train and while the deceased was travelling in the said train name as a passenger accidentally fell down from the train and died due the injuries sustained in the incident. He further consistently states that the Tribunal utterly fails to appreciate the evidence of A.Ws.l and 2 and had given much weight to the opinion of the mediators in the inquest report covered under Ex.A.3. to 16. 7 17. As against the same, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent-railways contends that the initial burden on the applicants that the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not, was not established. Moreover, the fact mentioned in the postmortem report that the death was due to head injuiy, which is unlikely happened due to fall from running train and much stress is made by the learned counsel for the respondent that no ticket or travel authority was recovered from her possession. Thereby, the applieants are not entitled for compensation as the death might not be associated with the running train. 18. He further submits that as per Railways Act, no compensation shall be payable if a person dies ‘suicide or attempted suicide by him, self-inflicted injury and his own criminal act’, which fall in exception ‘b’ and ‘c’ of Section 124-A of Railways Act. 19. On close perusal of the evidence placed before the Tribunal as well legal proposition, before deciding the factual aspect, the law laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of 8 Kerala in Union of India v. A.Geetha and others^, in which followed another Division Bench judgment of same High Court in Jayalakshmi v. Union of India^, wherein at Paragraph No held as follows: .13 13. The dictum in the decision Division Bench of this Court, of which supra rendered by one among us, was a constituent member, is also relevant in the context and a 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 speciifc 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 irght, the statutory 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 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 provision must 1 2018ACJ 941 2 2013ACJ 1707 (Kerala) 9 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 the helplessness of the claimants who may be 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. ” From the above, Rules are very clear that the burden is on 20. Railways and its officials to conduct inquiry and investigate cause of the incidentand to come proper conclusion. 21. It is further held in the said judgment that “the realistic acceptance of the plight of the victims is perfectly clear from the mechanism stipulated for inquiry/investigation under the Railways Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. 10 22. It is further observed in the said judgment that “the burden is placed on the shoulders of the Railways and its ofifcials to conduct a proper inquiry to ascertain whether claimants are really entitled to amounts or not”. 23. In the present case, A.W.l, who is husband of the deceased, admittedly not an eyewitness to the incident, however, he consistently states that on 10.08.2014 at about 06.30 p.m., the deeeased went to Guntakal to see her brother by train. Whereas, A.W.2, who is said to have witnessed the purehase ofjourney ticket by the deceased, on oath consistently states that on 10.08.2014 at about 07.30 p.m., the deceased purchased the journey ticket from Pamidi to Guntakal and boarded a passenger train. Thereby, it is made clear that the applicants/appellants eategorically proved the fact that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train in question. In this connection, it is benefit to state a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to properly appreciate the facts Ss law in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another v. General Manager, 24. 11 South-East Central Railway^, wherein at Paragraph No.3, it was observed as follows: 3. Though rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘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 ifled the claim before the RCT 27.02.2009 that investigation into the incident on was ordered on 23.04.2009. 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 Railway was accepted by the RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants ifled the appeal, i.e., F.A.O. No. 535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of the RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same 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. ” 3 2018 ACJ 146^ 14 that the deceased was a bonafide passenger with valid journey ticket and travelling in the said train. Therefore, this Court of the view that the Tribunal has material placed before it and dismissed applicant. not properly appreciated the the claim of the 30. On the other hand, on re-appreciating of entire facts before this Court, it is well established that the deceased having valid journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger and died resulting of untoward incident. Thereby, order of the Tribunal needs interference by way of this appeal and appellants to establish that they are entitled for claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. are able 31. Coming to the quantum of compensation entitled by the applicants is concerned. it is relevant to refer now. a pronouncement of HonTole Supreme Court in Kamukayi v. Union of Indict, wherein it “Aceordingly and as per above discussion was categorically held that we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed 5 2023 (3) ALD 145 (SC) 15 by the High Court and also the Claims Tribunal dated 29.06.2017. Consequently, claim application is allowed. The appellants are held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its realization. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondents within a period of eight weeks. No order as to costs. 32. In the present case on hand also, though the appellants have claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- only, as per the Schedule given by the Ministry of Railways vide Notification dated 22'^'^ December, 2016, the Railways are liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of its passengers. Therefore, appellant Nos.l and 2, being husband and daughter ! of the deceased, are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of deceased Illuri Husenamma. 16 33. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 23.08.2021 passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Guntur in OAII(U).No.321 of 2014, is hereby set aside. The respondent-Railways shall pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellant Nos.l and 2, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 34. Out of the aforesaid compensation amount, appellant Nos. 1 and 2, being the husband and daughter of the deceased. are entitled to receive equal shares along with the interest accrued thereon. They are also permitted to withdraw their respective shares of the compensation. No order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTIoi OFFICER //TRUE COPY// ,VV/ To, 1. The Registrar/Administrative Officer, Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur. (With Records in any) 2. One CC to Sri G. Venkatesulu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar(Central Government Counsel) [OPUC] 4. One CC to The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P. 5. Three C.D. Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:21/04/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.285 of 2021 ^ 2 2 SEP 2025 frentSectitiL^'^ ALLOWING THE CMA