APHC010091592020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Between: 1. B LAKSHMI, W/O LATE B. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE LABOUR. D.NO. 4 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APPANNAVEEDA VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G. DIST., 2. B. MOUNIKA, D/O LATE B. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, APPANNAVEEDA VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G. DIST., 105. 3. B. VENKATA LAKSHMI, D/O LATE B. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT SCHOOL APPANNAVEEDA VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G. DIST., - 521 105. 4. B. GANGAMMA, DIED. 1. UNION OF INDIA, RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 99 OF 2020 B LAKSHMI, W/O LATE B. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE LABOUR. D.NO. 4 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APPANNAVEEDA VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G. DIST., - 521 105. B. MOUNIKA, D/O LATE B. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, D.NO.4-31/1, NEAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APPANNAVEEDA VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G. DIST., B. VENKATA LAKSHMI, D/O LATE B. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, D.NO.4-31/1, NEAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APPANNAVEEDA VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G. B. GANGAMMA, DIED. ...APPELLANT(S) AND UNION OF INDIA, THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. the Appellant(S): GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 2020 B LAKSHMI, W/O LATE B. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE LABOUR. D.NO. 4-31/1, NEAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APPANNAVEEDA VILLAGE, PEDAPADU B. MOUNIKA, D/O LATE B. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 11 31/1, NEAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APPANNAVEEDA VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G. DIST., - 521 B. VENKATA LAKSHMI, D/O LATE B. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 31/1, NEAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APPANNAVEEDA VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G. ...APPELLANT(S) THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL ...RESPONDENT J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 99 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.50 of 2012, dated 09.01.2020 the Applicants have preferred the present Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the claim application of the applicant before the Tribunal are that Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), accompanied by his friend one G.Ratnakar Rao, were travelling on 16.08.2011 in 57271 Vijayawada-Rayagada Passenger train, in a general compartment, with valid journey ticket. While travelling in the said train, there was heavy rush of passengers in the compartment and suddenly the deceased had fallen down accidentally from the running train at Km.507/8-7 in the yard of Bhimadole railway station, due to jerk of the train, when the train was leaving the platform of Bhimadole railway station. He had sustained several injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the Claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition seeking compensation. 3. The respondent railway administration filed written statement denying all the averments of the application and contended that it is not case of an untoward incident and the death of deceased is suspicious. The friend of the deceased alleged to have been travelled together with the deceased boarded the same 3 coach, but no complaint was lodged by him, when the deceased found missing. No such friend was travelling with the deceased and the tickets annexed with the OA are planted one. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above leadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial/inquiry: 1) Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona-fide passenger of the train in question? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident? 4) Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the OA? 5) To what relief? 5. To prove the case of Claimants, 1st claimant – B.Lakshmi examined as A.W.1, one G.Ratnakara Rao @ Ratnakar examined as A.W.2. Through A.W.1 got marked Ex.A.1 – original journey ticket, Ex.A.2 – attested copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.3 – attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A.4 – attested copy of postmortem examination report, Ex.A.5 – death certificate of deceased, Ex.A.6 – Family members certificate of claimants. On behalf of respondent, none were examined but DRM (Inquiry) report was filed and marked as Ex.R.1. 6. Upon hearing both counsel, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal held that there is absolutely no need for a person travelling in the train, in the night, to alight to an adjacent track to pass urine. Therefore, the incident is not convincing and it cannot be termed as an 4 untoward incident, as defined in the statute. Further held that the deceased was with full knowledge of the imminent possibility of danger to his life, therefore, it squarely comes within the term ‘self inflicted injury’ and dismissed the claim application. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent. 8. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellants would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and erred in holding that the death of the deceased does not fall under the definition of ‘untoward incident”. The learned 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. 9. 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 is not fall under Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 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 5 Appellant after considering the submissions of Respondent. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed. 10. Perused the record. 11. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellants would contend that this matter is squarely covered by an order of 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- “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.” 1 Civil A ppeal No.3799 of 2023 6 12. 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 presumed to be a bona fide passenger unless the railway administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse. 13. In the instant case, the burden of proof shifts on the Respondent/ Railways, as the Appellant proved that he sustained injuries in the untoward incident by marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. None was examined on behalf of the Respondents to rebut the evidence of the Applicants. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the deceased died in the untoward incident while travelling in a train. 14. 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.” 15. During hearing, learned counsel for the Appellants 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 2 (2019) 3 SCC 410 7 123. 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; (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. 16. 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 8 Kamukayi’s case (supra), it can be observed that the Respondent is failed to establish as to whether the injured/ deceased is not a bona fide passenger. Claimant have discharged their 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. 17. Coming to 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 was held as follows: “ 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 9 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 Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The impugned judgment dated 09.01.2020 passed in OA/II/U/No.50 of 2012 by the learned Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) from the Respondent. The Applicants are entitled to claim compensation in equal shares. 20. 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. 21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 25.02.2026 KS/ KK