APHC010041942020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: Between: 1. A JAYASREE ALIAS JAYAMMA, W/O.LATE PEDA GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC.COOLIE, R/O.NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, PEDAKURAPADU (V), GUNTUR DISTRICT 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. INAMPUDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 51 OF 2020 A JAYASREE ALIAS JAYAMMA, W/O.LATE PEDA GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC.COOLIE, R/O.NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, PEDAKURAPADU (V), GUNTUR DISTRICT AND REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. Counsel for the Appellant: INAMPUDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 2020 A JAYASREE ALIAS JAYAMMA, W/O.LATE PEDA GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC.COOLIE, R/O.NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, ...APPELLANT REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL ...RESPONDENT VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 51 OF 2020 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) in O.A II (U) No.33 of 2011, dated 29.11.2019 the Applicant has preferred the present Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the claim application of the applicant before the Tribunal are that on 01.11.2010 the injured – A.Sayasree @ Jayamma was returning from Repalle after her mother’s ceremony, she had purchased a journey ticket bearing No.94569769 from Repalle to Pedakurapadu, boarded passenger Train No.319. When the train reached the destination station, while she was alighting, due to heavy crowd and sudden movement of train, she accidentally slipped and fell down on the platform. As a result, she sustained fracture injury, shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur by 108 Ambulance. She produced journey ticket, copies of GD entry, intimation of accident to police, treatment card etc.,. Hence, claim petition filed by the claimant seeking compensation from the Respondent. 3. The respondent railway filed written statement denying the averments of the application and alleged untoward incident as alleged by the applicant and stated that the incident was not reported to any railway authorities. According to their inquiry, no such incident had taken place on that day at Pedakurapadu. No 3 railway employee or RPF accompanied the applicant to the hospital, as alleged by her. The journey ticket produced is planted one. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues:- 1) Whether the applicant was a bona-fide passenger of the train and sustained injuries as a result of untoward incident? 2) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim the compensation as prayed for and to what amount? 5. During the course of trial, the applicant herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. On behalf of respondent, none was examined, Ex.R.1 – DRM (inquiry) report marked. 6. Upon hearing the counsel for claimant as well as respondent and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the tribunal held that she did not sustain any injury in an untoward incident as alleged by her, hence, dismissed the claim. Assailing the same, the Claimant filed the present C.M.A on the grounds that the tribunal erred in holding that the injured was not a victim of untoward incident, has not sustained injuries due to fall from train, but due to some other reasons, by duly ignoring the GRP investigation and hospital intimation stating that the injured sustained fracture due to train accident and by relying on the DRM’s report which is not filed within statutory period held that the injured was not a victim of untoward incident. Since the Government of India 4 recently by its notification enhanced the compensation from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- w.e.f 01.01.2017, hence, the appellant may be permitted to claim higher compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, since the Act being the beneficial piece of legislation. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for Appellant as well as the Respondent and perused the material on record. 8. The tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimant on the sole ground that the claimant not sustained injuries in an untoward incident but due to some other reason. This Court gone through the order passed by the tribunal wherein it is observed that the incident was occurred on 01.11.2010 in the midnight. During DRM (inquiry) report along with its entire case records (Ex.R.1) record of ambulance movement was also collected during investigation in which Ambulance trip sheet shows that one Jayamma, aged 50 years was transported from railway station to PHC on 01.11.2010 in the midnight. But, the tribunal by relying on D.R.M’s report that during their inquiry, they recorded the statements of Deputy Station Superintendent, Peddakurpadu railway station, Guard of Train No.319 passenger, who worked at the relevant time and the duty Pointsman who was present at the station, at the relevant time, have stated that no such incident as alleged by the applicant has taken place at the station from 9.00 hours of 01.11.2010 to 7.00 hours of 02.11.2020. 5 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that as per C.D enclosed along with D.R.M’s report ambulance movements and trip sheet supports the case of claimant. Ex.A.1 - the journey ticket proves that injured is bona-fide passenger of a train. Ex.A.3 - hospital intimation dated 02.11.2010 in which it was recorded that the injured sustained injuries in railway station while she was alighting from a train. 10. Learned Counsel for Appellant argued that in this case the D.R.M’s (inquiry) report was not filed within 60 days from the date of incident as per Rule 7(2) of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 hence, the DRM report cannot be taken into considered and claimant may be awarded compensation. In support of contention of learned counsel for appellant, he relied upon a judgment in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another Vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railway – 2018 ACJ 1460 wherein it was held as follows:- “Though Rule 7 of Railway Passengers (manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 mandates the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident, no such enquiry was conducted immediately after the accident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal the investigation into the incident was ordered”. 6 11. In the present case, the incident was occurred on 01.11.2010, the D.R.M’s report was not prepared with 60 days from the date of incident. Hence, the Applicant is entitled for compensation. 12. The Claimant sustained fracture injury in the present case. As per Schedule III, Sl.No.34 the compensation is fixed for the injury sustained by the Claimant is at Rs.64,000/-. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal with interest at 9% p.a from the date of petition, till the date of realization. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed in OA/II/U/No.33 of 2011 by the learned Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The Appellant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.64,000/- with interest at 9% p.a from the Respondent as stated supra. 13. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. It is made clear that 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. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated 26.02.2026. KS/ KK