APHC010020592020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 23/2020 Between: 1. M IMMANIYAL @ T. IMMANIYAL, DEFACTO APPLICANT. 2. T.SUSEELA, W/O LATE M.IMMANIYAL @T.IMMANIYAL AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O H.NO 2-417 TUNGABHADRA, KACHAPURAM, TUNGABHADRA E.KURNOOL MANTRALAYA MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST PIN 518 319 3. T.PREM KUMAR, S/O LATE M.IMMANIYAL @T.IMMANIYAL AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCC. MINOR, R/O H.NO 2-417 TUNGABHADRA, KACHAPURAM, TUNGABHADRA E.KURNOOL MANTRALAYAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST PIN 518 319BEING MINOR REP BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPLICANT NO.2 4. T. SANTHI RAJU, S/O LATE M.IMMANIYAL @T.IMMANIYAL AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, OCC. MINOR, R/O H.NO 2-417 TUNGABHADRA, KACHAPURAIN, TUNGABHADRA E.KURNOOL MANTRALAYAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST PIN 518 319BEING MINOR REP BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPLICANT NO.2 5. T.DEVA RAJU, S/O T.RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. PVT WORKER, R/O H.NO 2-417 TUNGABHADRA, KACHAPURAM, TUNGABHADRA E.KURNOOL MANTRALAYAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST PIN 518 319, MINOR REP BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPLICANT NO.2 6. T.MARIYAMMA, W/O T.DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. PVT WORKER, R/O H.NO 2-417 TUNGABHADRA, KACHAPURAM, TUNGABHADRA E.KURNOOL MANTRALAYAM MANDAL, KURNOOL 2 VS,J CMA No.23 of 2020 DIST PIN 518 319 ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, , rep. By its General Manager,South Central Railway, Secunderbad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersTo set aside the order dated 02.09.2019 in O.A. II (U) NO.275/2012 on the file of the Honourable Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, and consequently allow the appeal and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To condone the delay of 51 days in filing 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 VS,J CMA No.23 of 2020 J U D G M E N T: Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench (for brevity, „the Tribunal‟), in OA II (u) No.275 of 2012, dated 02.09.2019, the applicants have preferred the present appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows On 08.03.2012, the deceased proceeded to Raichur for the purpose of purchasing biscuits, bread, chocolates, and other materials for his business. In the afternoon, he purchased a railway ticket at Raichur Railway Station to travel to Adoni and boarded Train No.11027. It is stated that he intended to proceed to his in-laws‟ village to bring his wife and son. It is further the case of the applicants that when the train reached Mantralayam Road Railway Station, the deceased got down from the train, handed over his luggage to his parents, drank water, and while re-boarding the train, he accidentally slipped due to a sudden jerk. As a result, he fell in between the platform and the train, sustaining grievous injuries, including amputation of his right leg below the knee, along with multiple injuries over his body. Immediately, the train was stopped by the co-passengers by pulling the alarm chain, and the injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Adoni with the assistance of his father, guard, and railway staff. 4 VS,J CMA No.23 of 2020 4. The respondent–Railways filed a written statement contending that the claim application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It was asserted that the case does not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It was further contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that, as per the DRM‟s inquiry report, he attempted to board a moving train, and the incident occurred due to his own negligence. Therefore, the respondent-Railways sought dismissal of the application. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of the train and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the compensation as prayed for and to what relief? 6. Initially, the claim application was filed by the injured applicant himself. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, he died, and his legal representatives were brought on record and they claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries. 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the appellants, the 2nd appellant, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as AW1 and documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the Respondents, no witness was examined; however, the Report of the Divisional Railway Manager was marked as Ex.R1. 8. The learned Tribunal, after hearing on both sides, holding that the incident does not fall within the ambit of an untoward incident and accordingly 5 VS,J CMA No.23 of 2020 dismissed the Claim Application. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed. 9. Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent. 10. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present appeal has been filed contending that Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger and that the death of the deceased does not fall under the definition of an „untoward incident‟. It is further contended that the 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. 11. Learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent would contend that though the injured/deceased had valid authority to travel, the incident does not fall within the ambit of an „untoward incident‟ as defined under Section 123(c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The DRM report confirms that injured passenger attempted to board the train while it was in motion, thereby he sustained grievous injuries; moreover, entraining or detraining from a moving train is a negligent act punishable under Section 156 of the Railway Act. Therefore, there is no fault or lapse on the part of the railways in the alleged mishap, and the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants herein. The learned Tribunal rightly dismissed 6 VS,J CMA No.23 of 2020 the claim made by the appellants after considering the submissions of the respondent. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed. 12. Perused the record. 13. During hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the injured/deceased had purchased a ticket bearing No.49100962 for travel from ex-Raichur to Adoni dated 08.03.2012. The said ticket, upon verification by the respondent-railway, was found to be genuine and was marked as Ex.A1, thereby establishing that he was a bona fide passenger. In support of the claim, the appellants filed an attested copy of the intimation given to the Station House Officer, Government Railway Police, Adoni, regarding the accident, as well as the statement of the injured. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants further stated that this matter is squarely covered by this Court order dated 29.09.2023 passed in C.M.A.No. 17 of 2020, wherein this court following the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Kamukayi & Ors. V. Union of India and Ors”1, wherein it was 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- 1 Civil A ppeal No.3799 of 2023 7 VS,J CMA No.23 of 2020 “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.” 15. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Hon‟ble Apex Court has also discussed the same verdict cited supra in “Union of India v. Rina Devi 2 ” case also and passed Award. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the case law cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the appellant is entitled the claim as per schedule. 16 In Rina Devi’s case cited supra, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that, on the burden of proof, which emphasized that any person found dead or injured on railway premises is presume to be a bona fide passenger unless the railway administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse. 17. In the instant case, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent/Railways, as the injured had purchased a journey ticket, which 2 http://Indiankanoon.org/doc/94898543/ 8 VS,J CMA No.23 of 2020 was marked as Ex.A1 and also relied upon Exs.A2 to A11 to substantiate their claim. Initially, the claim petition was filed by the injured himself; however, during the course of the trial, he died, and his legal representatives were brought on record. On the other hand, no witness was examined on behalf of the respondent, except marking the Report of the Divisional Railway Manager. Therefore, it is presumed that the injured sustained injuries due to an untoward incident. 18. In the light of judgment of “Union of India v. Radha Yadav3”, 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.” 19. During hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant drawn the attention of this Court with regard to Section 123 and also 25 (c) of the Railway Act, 1989, which deals “untoward incident”, which reproduced hereunder: 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:— 3 (2019) 3 SCC 410 9 VS,J CMA No.23 of 2020 (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 (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. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the material available on record, it is proved and established that the injured was a bona fide passenger and that the incident occurred in the railway premises while he was boarding the train, during which he sustained injuries resulting in below- knee amputation in an untoward incident. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to compensation. 10 VS,J CMA No.23 of 2020 21. Accordingly, this Court opined that applicants are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation payable in respect of injuries to the injured/deceased as per the schedules Part-III(20) in The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016. 22. Following the decisions cited supra, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The impugned judgment dated 02.09.2019 passed in OA-II(u) No.275 of 2012 by the learned Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The appellants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) from the Respondent. 23. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The respondent, Union of India is directed to pay the compensation as stated supra 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 18.03.2026 KGR