APHC010180842019 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. CH. RATNARAJU, OC KALAGHATHAVARI GROUP SAKHINETIPALLI (M) DISTRICT 1. UNION OF INDIA, Rep. RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. INAMPUDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PASALA PONNA RAO (SC FOR CENT GOVT.) 2. 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) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 206 OF CH. RATNARAJU, OCC, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO. KALAGHATHAVARI GROUP SAKHINETIPALLI (M), EAST GODAVARI AND UNION OF INDIA, Rep. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. Counsel for the Appellant: INAMPUDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: PASALA PONNA RAO (SC FOR CENT GOVT.) J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 206 OF 2019 C, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.2.269 GONDI EAST GODAVARI ...APPELLANT BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH CENTRAL ...RESPONDENT J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 206 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.386 of 2013, dated 26.03.2019 the Applicant has preferred the present Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the claim application of the applicant before the Tribunal are that on 19.01.2013, Claimant’s wife, namely, Smt.Ch.Hepsiba accompanied by her relative, namely, S.Krishnarao, after purchasing 2nd Class joint ticket, boarded Train No.17256 (Hyderabad-Narsapur Express Train). Because of heavy rush, she managed to get some standing space near the door of the compartment, in the mean time, the train started with a heavy jerk, and she accidentally fell from the moving train and sustained serious injuries on the vital organs of her body and died on the spot. Therefore, the Claimant being legal representative filed the claim petition seeking compensation from the Respondent. 3. The respondent-railway filed a written statement, wherein by way of preliminary objections, it is averred that no untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of Railway Act causing death to the deceased, has taken place, as such, the present application is not maintainable. It is further alleged that in view of conclusion drawn in DRM's report, it is opined that the incident had 3 occurred when the deceased's relative Sri S.Krishna Rao got down from the train to purchase some food items, in the mean time, the train started and she presumed that Sri S.Krishna Rao will miss the train, so the deceased negligently and hurriedly, tried to get down from the said train and died. Therefore, the Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues – 1) Whether the applicant(s) is/are the dependent(s) 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? 3) Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed? 5. The applicant, in support of his claim, himself examined as P.W.1and got marked Ex.A.1 – attested copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2-attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of postmortem examination report of deceased, Ex.A.4 – attested copy of message issued by Dy. SS/Hyderabad, Ex.A.5 – Xerox copy of ration card, Ex.A.6 – Xerox copy of aadhar card, Ex.A.7- copy of marriage certificate, Ex.A.8- copy of passport. On the other hand, railway- respondent got examined M.Ch.Venkateswarlu, Mail Express Guard of the Train as R.W.1- and got marked DRM's report along with other documents. 6. Upon hearing both counsel, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased was neither a 4 bonafide passenger of the train nor suffered an untoward incident and dismissed the claim of the Applicants. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent. 8. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. 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 Appellant 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 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.” 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 1 Civil A ppeal No.3799 of 2023 6 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 and died on the spot in the untoward incident by marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. 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 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:— 2 (2019) 3 SCC 410 7 (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 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 8 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 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 26.03.2019 passed in 9 OA/II/U/No.386 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. 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: 05.02.2026 KS/ KK