APHC010187632019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 215 Between: 1. K.K. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE MADDULETI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 3/206 KRISHNAMSETTYPALLI VILLAGE , GIDDALUR MANDAL, PRASKASM DISTRICT PIN 523 345 2. VIJAYANIRMALA, W/O K.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC KRISHNAMSETTYPALLI VILLAGE , GIDDALUR MANDAL, PRASKASM DISTRICT PIN 523 345 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PASALA PONNA RAO (SC FOR CENT GOVT.) 2. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 215 OF 2019 K.K. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE MADDULETI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 3/206 KRISHNAMSETTYPALLI VILLAGE , GIDDALUR MANDAL, PRASKASM DISTRICT PIN 523 345 VIJAYANIRMALA, W/O K.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO. 3/206 KRISHNAMSETTYPALLI VILLAGE , GIDDALUR MANDAL, PRASKASM DISTRICT PIN 523 345 ...APPELLANT(S) AND UNION OF INDIA, rep. BY ITS THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT pellant(S): GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: PASALA PONNA RAO (SC FOR CENT GOVT.) J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 2019 K.K. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE MADDULETI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 3/206 KRISHNAMSETTYPALLI VILLAGE , GIDDALUR MANDAL, PRASKASM DISTRICT PIN 523 345 VIJAYANIRMALA, W/O K.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO. 3/206 KRISHNAMSETTYPALLI VILLAGE , GIDDALUR MANDAL, ...APPELLANT(S) BY ITS THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH ...RESPONDENT J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 215 OF 2019 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.71 of 2010, dated 07.02.2019 the Applicants has preferred the present Appeal. 2. The Appellants herein are the parents of Mr. K Venkata Mahesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “deceased’), has made a claim before the learned Tribunal for Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest from the Respondent/ Railways on account of death of the deceased due to untoward incident. On 01.01.2010 in the morning the deceased went to Vijayawada from Guntur to his friend’s house by name K. Nagashankara Reddy and both of them visited Kanaka Durga Temple. In return journey, the deceased along with his friend arrived at Vijayawada Railway Station and purchased a ticket from Vijayawada to Guntur and boarded a train called Vijayawada – Yeshwantpur passenger. Due to heavy rush in the compartment, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from running train at KM No. 21/15-17 in between Krishna Canal and Mangalagiri Railway Stations. Having been dragged by train, he sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The Respondent filed Written Statement by denying the claim of the Appellants herein and inter alia contended that the deceased was not 3 possessing journey ticket and it is not a case of accidental fall, according to Divisional Railway Manager Report and therefore, the case falls within expectations (b)and (c) of Provision to Section 124-A. Therefore, the Railways is not liable to pay any compensation to the Appellants herein and requested to dismiss the claim. 4. During enquiry, the Tribunal framed issues for determination would be: 1) Whether the application is maintainable? 2) Whether the Applicant(s) is / are dependant(s) of the deceased? 3) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train in question? 4) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident? 5) Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application? 6) To what relief? 5. During enquiry, the Appellant No.1 is examined as AW-1 and friend of deceased was examined as AW-2; on behalf of Appellants, the documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A9. On behalf of the Respondent, none was examined and marked the Report of the Divisional Railway Manager as Ex.R1. 6. The learned Tribunal after hearing on both sides, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bonafide passenger has dismissed the Claim Application. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed. 4 7. Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. J.U.M.V.Prasad, 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 also the deceased has not sustained injuries due to an untoward incident. The learned tribunal without appreciating the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act, simply dismissed the claim of the appellant. 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. The DRM report confirms that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he did not die in an untoward incident. 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 Appellants herein. The learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim made by the Appellants after considering the submissions of Respondent. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed. 10. Perused the record. 5 11. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that Mr. B. Elia, Keyman/ Gangman in his statement categorically stated that at about 6.00 hrs he found a male dead body at the spot and informed the same to duty station master vide Memo at about 8.00 hrs, which fact is a part of DRM Report i.e Ex.R1. Therefore, death of the deceased is not in dispute. 12. Learned counsel for the Appellants further stated 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 1 Civil A ppeal No.3799 of 2023 6 basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” 13. 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. 14. In the instant case, the burden of proof shifts on the Respondent/ Railways, as the Appellants proved the death of the deceased while travelling in train by marking Ex.A1: copy of the FIR and Ex.A6: Final Report. None was examined on behalf of the Respondents to rebut the evidence of the Applicants, except marking of Report of Divisional Railway Manager. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the deceased was dead during travel in train. 15. 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.” 16. 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: 2 (2019) 3 SCC 410 7 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:— (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. 17. 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 8 court in Kamukayi’s case (supra), it can be observed that the Respondent is failed to establish as to whether the deceased is not a bona fide passenger. Claimants 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. 18. 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”. 19. 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 or 9 injuries to the Applicants is as per the schedule in Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016. 20. Following the decisions cited supra, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The impugned judgment dated 07.02.2019 passed in OA/II/U/No.71 of 2010 by the learned tribunal, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) from the Respondent. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the said compensation amount in equal shares. 21. 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. 22. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 12.02.2026 KK