1 VS,J CMA_416 of 2019 APHC010243392019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 416/2019 Between: 1. M PADMA, W/O LATE M. EILIAYA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 1/65, PSG PALAM CUMBUM, PRAKASAM DIST., 2. K. VIJAYA BHARATHI, W/O K. DIXON, , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 1/65, PSG PALAM CUMBUM, PRAKASAM DIST., 3. M. SYAMALA DEVI, W/O MS. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 1/65, PSG PALAM CUMBUM, PRAKASAM DIST., 4. B. KALAVATHI, W/O LATE B. MATHAIAH,, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 1/65, PSG PALAM CUMBUM, PRAKASAM DIST., 5. M. SAIAMMA, D/O M. ELIYA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 1/65, PSG PALAM CUMBUM, PRAKASAM DIST., ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, General Manager, South Central Railway, 2 VS,J CMA_416 of 2019 Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersTo set aside the order dated 26.03.2019 in O.A. No. 405/2014 on the file of the Honourable Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, and consequently allow the appeal and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To condone the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal . Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA_416 of 2019 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench in OA-IIu/CDG/405/2014, filed by the applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one M. Eliaya (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) resulted in an untoward incident that occurred on 09.10.2014 whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the applicants. 2. The appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant Nos.2 to 5 are the daughters of the deceased. The respondent is being represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased, with a view to go to Giddalur to the house of one of his daughters, purchased a train ticket bearing B- 61458828 from Cumbum to Giddalur on 09.10.2014 at about 12.59 a.m., and boarded the general compartment of train bearing No.56504 (Vijayawada – Bangalore Cantonment passenger) and informed the same to the 1st appellant over cell phone. As there was heavy rush of passengers in the said compartment and due to the speed, jolt and sudden jerks, the deceased is said to have slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train at KM.No.200-9-201/0 between Satyavalli and Giddalur railwy station, as a result of which, he sustained several injuries and died on the spot. Thus, the appellants filed an application before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of the deceased caused due to the aforesaid incident. 4 VS,J CMA_416 of 2019 3. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing a written statement denying the averments made in the application. It was contended that the alleged incident does not fall within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act and that there is no eye-witness to the alleged fall of the deceased from the train. It was further contended that the dead body of the deceased was found five meters away from the railway track and that no person can fall down from a running train to such a distance. Thus requested to dismiss the application filed by the appellants herein. 4. During the course of trial, the appellants got marked Exs.A1 to A12 and the 1st appellant got examined herself as A.W.1. On behalf of the respondent, the report of the Divisional Railway Manager and the enquiry report submitted by one Sh.Y.B. Muneiah, Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Nandyal were marked. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident? 2. Whether the applicant(s) is/are the dependent(s) of the deceased? 3. Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed for? 4. To what relief?. 6. The Tribunal, after going through the material available before its, came to a conclusion that there is not cogent and reliable evidence to show that the deceased was a sufferer of an untoward incident. Observing thus, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the 5 VS,J CMA_416 of 2019 appellants vide impugned judgment dated 26.03.2019. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal was preferred. 7. Heard Mrs. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Uma Devi Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 8. The deceased is said to have boarded the train No.56504 on 09.10.2014 to travel to Giddalur by purchasing the ticket bearing No.B- 61458828 from Cumbum to Giddalur. Due to alleged heavy rush, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down as a result of which, he sustained several head injury and died on the spot. Section 124A of the Railway Act, 1989 entitles a passenger to claim compensation, who has been injured or killed in an untoward incident, as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act and the word „passenger‟ has been defined under Section 2(29) of the Act. It is only when the fact of the injured or the deceased being a bonafide passenger of a train is established, the question of payment of compensation arises in case the incident is held to be an untoward incident. 9. While assessing whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train No.56504, the Tribunal observed that the said train cross the place of incident i.e. KM No.200/9-201/0 at about 02.10 a.m., whereas the dead body of the deceased was first noticed by on duty railway keyman at about 02.00 p.m. It further expressed its shock that the dead body of the deceased was not noticed by any of the trains that pass through the route in question till 02.00 p.m. The Tribunal also observed that the respondent would not be responsible to pay compensation for every dead body lying near the track. The reasoning expressed by the 6 VS,J CMA_416 of 2019 Tribunal that the body of the deceased being found at some distance from the railway track and the fact that it was noticed after a lapse of time would reverse the occurrence of an untoward incident cannot be accepted. Such a conclusion is based purely on assumption rather than on any reliable evidence. It is a matter of common knowledge that when a person accidentally falls from a moving train, the momentum and velocity of the train may cause the body to be thrown several meters away from the track. Therefore, the mere fact that the body was found at some distance from the railway line cannot, by itself conclude that the deceased had not fallen from the train. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi1 in paragraph No.17.4 held as under: “17.4 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 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.” 10. Even otherwise, the delay in the discovery of the body does not mean that the accident has not occurred, as railway tracks often pass through isolated places where accidents may remain unnoticed for a considerable period of time. Moreover, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the appellants on the ground that no valid ticket was recovered. A perusal of the report of the IPF Nandyal post into the 1 2019 (3) SCC 572 7 VS,J CMA_416 of 2019 accidental death of the deceased would go to show that on 18.04.2014, Sri. M. Venkateswarlu, RPF constable, Giddalur Out post was examined and his statement was recorded by Sri. S.V.S, Polaiah, ASIPS/NDL-Post, wherein he mentioned that while inspecting the scene, he found one railway journey ticket bearing no.61458828 from Cumbum to Giddalur, purchased for one adult on 09.10.2014 at about 12.59 a.m., at Cumbum. However, the Tribunal proceeded by assuming that no ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased and that the same was filed at the time of filing the application. When the claimants have putforth enough material to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and when the report of IPF Nandyal post itself shows the recovery of a ticket from the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have duly considered the same before concluding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court feels it appropriate to set-aside the impugned judgment dated 26.03.2019. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set-aside and the appeal stands allowed by allowing the claim of compensation. The appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization, in equal shares. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/- and if 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 amount thus computed is directed to be paid by the respondent Railways within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8 VS,J CMA_416 of 2019 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:05.02.2026. Gss