APHC010232372019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Between: 1. J. VENKATA RAMANA, S/O.LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC.PVT EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO. Q.NO. H PETA, APPM TOWNSHIP RAJAHMUNDRY 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Appellant herein Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in 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: 277 OF 2019 J. VENKATA RAMANA, S/O.LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC.PVT EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO. Q.NO. H PETA, APPM TOWNSHIP RAJAHMUNDRY ...APPELLANT AND THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: The Appellant herein is the Applicant before The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Tribunal in OAII (U) No.360 of 2012. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 2019 J. VENKATA RAMANA, S/O.LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC.PVT EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO. Q.NO. H-56MALLAIAH ...APPELLANT REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH ...RESPONDENT VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) the Applicant before The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, aggrieved by the order U) No.360 of 2012. 2 2. The Appellant herein is the injured has made a claim before the learned Tribunal for Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest from the Respondent/ Railways. On 03.07.2012, at early hours, the Appellant arrived at Rajahmundry Railway Station, purchased a platform ticket bearing No. 80924300 for himself and II Class train journey ticket for his relative Ex.Rajahmundry to Samalkot and went to Platform No.3, when train No. 22856 Tirupati – Santragachi Express arrived on said platform, many passengers were boarded first, however, when his mother in-law boarded the general compartment and he also boarded the same compartment by carrying her luggage to keep inside, while alighting from the compartment, he slipped and fell down from said train in between platform, due to sudden jerks and movement. As a result, his left hand crushed, cut and separated at shoulder level besides other multiple injuries all over the body. Hence, the claim. 3. The Respondent filed Written Statement by denying the claim of the Appellant herein and inter alia contended that the injured was not bonafide passenger or holding platform ticket and that he is not authorized to enter into a coach. Therefore, it is not a case of accidental fall 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 Appellant herein and requested to dismiss the claim. 4. During enquiry, the Tribunal framed issues for determination would be: 3 1) Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of the train and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident? 2) Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim the compensation as prayed for and to what relief? 5. During enquiry, the Appellant is examined as AW-1; on behalf of Appellant, the documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A10. On behalf of the Respondents, 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 injured cannot hold to be a bonafide passenger and that dismissed the Claim Application. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed. 7. Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent. 8. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger and 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 Central Government Counsel for the Respondent would contend that the injured 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 4 confirms that the injured was not a bonafide passenger and he sustained grievious injuries due to 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 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. 11. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant had purchased platform ticket and that he is a bonafide passenger. In support of claim laid, the Appellant has filed platform ticket, attested copy of message from Dy. SS, RJY, memo from Police Post to SHO, Government Railway Police, intimation of accident, G.D Entry, Statement of injured and also filed medical records such as Discharge Summary and Disability Certificate. 12. Learned counsel for the Appellant further stated that this matter is squarely covered by this 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 1 Civil A ppeal No.3799 of 2023 5 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.” 13. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has also discussed the same verdict cited supra in “Union of India v. Rina Devi 2 ” case also and passed Award. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the case law cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the appellant is entitled the claim as per schedule. 14. 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 presume to be a bona fide passenger unless the railway administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse. 2 http://Indiankanoon.org/doc/94898543/ 6 15. In the instant case, the burden of proof shifts on the Respondent/ Railways, as the Appellant purchased platform ticket and also relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 to substantiate his claim. But none was examined by the Respondent, except marking of Report of Divisional Railway Manager. Therefore, it is presume that the injured sustained injuries due to untoward incident. 16. In the light of judgment of “Union of India v. Radha Yadav3”, 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.” 17. During hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant 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:— (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; 3 (2019) 3 SCC 410 7 (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. 18. 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 observe that the Respondent has failed to establish that the injured is not a bona fide passenger. As such, the burden lies on the Respondent Railways to pay adequate compensation to the Appellant in respect of death or injuries as per the schedules in Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016. 19. Accordingly, this Court opined that the applicant is entitled for an amount of Rs.7,20,000/- towards compensation payable in respect of injuries 8 to the Applicant as per the schedules Part-III(i) in The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016. 20. Following the decisions cited supra, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The impugned judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed in OA/II/U/No.360 of 2012 by the learned tribunal, is hereby set aside. The Appellant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 7,20,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and twenty thousand only) from the Respondent. 21. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 25.02.2026 KK 9 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 277 OF 2019 25.02.2026 KK