1 CMA NO. 1014 OF 2016 VS,J. APHC010227482016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1014/2016 Between: 1. A. NAGAMANI, E.G.DIST & FOUR OTHERS, W/O LATE A. CHAKRAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. OCC: COFFEE HOTEL NEAR RAILWAY STATION, ANJIREDDY BUILDING, ANAPARTHY POST AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. A. RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE A. CHAKRAM, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. OCC: COFFEE HOTEL NEAR RAILWAY STATION, ANJIREDDY BUILDING, ANAPARTHY POST AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. A. PEDAKAPU, S/O LATE A. CHAKRAM, AGED 20 YEARS, OCC: COFFEE HOTEL NEAR RAILWAY STATION, ANJIREDDY BUILDING, ANAPARTHY POST AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. G. SURYAVATHI, W/O LATE A. CHAKRAM, AGED 25 YEARS. OCC : LABOUR NEAR RAILWAY STATION, ANJIREDDY BUILDING, ANAPARTHY POST AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. P. SATYAVENI, W/O P. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 19 YEARS. OCC: LABOUR NEAR RAILWAY STATION, ANJIREDDY BUILDING. ANAPARTHY POST AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) 2 CMA NO. 1014 OF 2016 VS,J. AND 1. UNIOR OF INDIA SECUNDERABAD, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY. SECUNDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. N.S.GEETHA MADHURI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 CMA NO. 1014 OF 2016 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1014/2016 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.227 of 2006, dated 17.10.2016 the Applicants have preferred the present Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the claim application of the applicants before the Tribunal are that one Mr. Amaradi Chakram (hereinafter referred to as „the deceased‟) the deceased along with his wife Mrs.A.Nagamani and their relative D.Chandravathi came to Samalkot railway station in the early hours of 06.04.2006 at 4.20 A.M., purchased a combined passenger train journey ticket from Samalkot to Anapati bearing No.80999814 for all the three of them, boarded Train No.432 Kakinada – Vijayawada Fast Passenger in a General Compartment. While he was traveling from Samalkot to Anapati, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running Train at K.M.No.610/39- 37 in the yard of Bikkavole railway station, he was dragged by the said train and sustained severe multiple crush and severe injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was a bonafide passenger and had died on account of an untoward incident. As such, the Applicants filed claim petition. 4 CMA NO. 1014 OF 2016 VS,J. 3. The Respondent filed Written Statement by denying their liability to pay compensation and further contending that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train in question as no ticket was found from person of deceased and the death of the deceased was not on account of any untoward incident, as alleged. It is further stated that there was no report of any such incident to the Guard or any railway officials and that the dead body was found only with lungi without shirt and the body was found beheaded and the enquiries caused had revealed that the deceased was a heart patient and committed suicide. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the tribunal for trial - 1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.432 Kakinada - Vijayawada Fast Passenger travelling from Samalkot to Anaparti on 06.04.2006? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4) To what relief? 5. Applicant No.1- A.Nagamani got examined herself as AW.1 and also got marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents on behalf of the Applicants. On behalf of Respondent, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and got marked Ex.R1 to R4 documents on behalf of Respondent. 5 CMA NO. 1014 OF 2016 VS,J. 6. The learned Tribunal after hearing on both sides, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bonafide passenger 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 Standing Counsel for the Central Government - 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 was not sustained injuries due to an untoward incident. The learned tribunal without appreciated the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act and simply dismissed the claim of the appellant. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed. 9. Learned Counsel for Respondent - Central Government would contend that the deceased was not in possession of any railway journey ticket. 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 6 CMA NO. 1014 OF 2016 VS,J. Appellants 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 1 Civil A ppeal No.3799 of 2023 7 CMA NO. 1014 OF 2016 VS,J. 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 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 the deceased died in the untoward incident by placing relevant documents i.e Ex.A1 to A5. 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: 2 (2019) 3 SCC 410 8 CMA NO. 1014 OF 2016 VS,J. 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. 9 CMA NO. 1014 OF 2016 VS,J. 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 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”. 10 CMA NO. 1014 OF 2016 VS,J. 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 17.10.2016 passed in OA/II/U/No.227 of 2006 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: 11.03.2026 KS/ KK