1 VS,J CMA Nos.189 and 192 of 2020 APHC010284322020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 189 and 192 OF 2020 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO 189 OF 2020 Between: 1. SMT. MALLA SATYAVATHI, W/O LATE CHANDRA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. MALLA DEVA NANDESWARA RAO, S/O LATE CHANDRA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 3. MALLA BHANU,, S/O. LATE CHANDRA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NATHAIAHPALEM VILLAGE, NEAR PANCHAYATH OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, through General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersappellant begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Misc. Appeal, having been aggrieved by the order dt. 20-4-202Q passed in O.A.II (U) No. 375 of012 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 2 VS,J CMA No.189 and 192 of 2020 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 192/2020 Between: 1. SMT. MALLA JAGGAYYAMMA, W/O LATE BAPU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. SMT. BODDEDA DEVAKI, W/O LATE B.V.S. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SMT. ALLA SYAMALA, W/O A. GANGA MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NAGULAPALLI VILLAGE, MUNAGAPAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, , through General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersMemorandum of Civil Misc. Appeal, having been aggrieved by the order dt. 20-4-2020 passed in O.A.II (U) No. 363 of 2012 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur for the following among other Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA No.189 and 192 of 2020 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since the issues raised in these appeals arise out of an alleged untoward incident that occurred on the same date and involved the same train, both the cases are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Aggrieved by the common order of dismissal passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench (for brevity, „the Tribunal‟), in O.A.(IIu)/363/2012 & 375 of 2012, dated 20.04.2020, the applicants have preferred the present appeals. 3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the cases are as follows: a) Malla Bapu Naidu, aged 53 years and Malla Chandra Naidu, aged 50 years, are brothers and owners of Flour Mills at Nathaiahpalem. Both of them went to Howrah along with one Thota Gopala Krishna for the purpose of purchasing machinery tools from Howrah. While returning, all the three had boarded Train No.12703 on 17.12.2011 from Howrah and when the said train reached Visakhapatnam, Thota Gopala Krishna got down at Visakhapatnam and both the brothers continued their journey towards Rajamundry. When the train reached Duvvada, the handicapped brother, Bapu Naidu, accompanied by his brother, went to the washroom in their coach. At that time, due to the speed, jerk, and jolt of the train, both of them accidentally slipped, fell from the running train, sustained grievous injuries, and died on the spot. It is stated that 4 VS,J CMA No.189 and 192 of 2020 Thota Gopala Krishna had purchased his own ticket and travelled in a general compartment, whereas the two deceased persons had purchased valid journey tickets and travelled in the compartment earmarked for physically challenged persons. It is further stated that their journey tickets, along with their luggage, were lost in the incident. On the next day, i.e., 18.12.2011, one Sri S. Kannaiah, Keyman, while on duty, noticed two dead bodies and informed the Station Superintendent, Visakhapatnam, who, in turn, informed the GRP, Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, FIR Nos.172 and 173 of 2011 were registered. As per the inquest report, the body of Bapu Naidu was found severed into two parts. In the case of Malla Chandra Naidu, a bill issued by Calcutta South Transport and a broken Nokia mobile phone were recovered from his shirt pocket. Ex.A3 – Postmortem Reports in both cases disclose that the cause of death was “multiple injuries in a railway run-over”. Hence, the claim petitions. b) The case of the applicants is that the deceased were bona fide passengers who died in an untoward incident, and that the applicants, being their dependents, are entitled to compensation under the relevant provisions. 5. The respondent–Railway Administration resisted the claim applications by filing written statements, denying all the averments made by the applicants. It was contended that the deaths did not occur due to any untoward incident and that the applicants had fabricated a false story with mala fide intention to claim compensation. It was further contended that there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident; the Guard of the train did not report any 5 VS,J CMA No.189 and 192 of 2020 such occurrence; and no one had informed him about the incident. It was also contended that the deceased were not bona fide passengers, as no journey tickets were recovered from the bodies or the scene of occurrence. On these grounds, dismissal of the claim petitions was sought. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1.Whether the applicants are dependents of deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident? 3. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief? 7. Before the Tribunal, in O.A.363 of 2012, A.W.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. In O.A.375 of 2012, the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-Railways, Ex.R1-D.R.M. report was marked and the Case Diary was also placed on record by the SHO, GRP, as per the directions of the Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, dismissed both the applications on the ground that it was not an accidental fall within the meaning of Section 123 (c)(2) of Railways Act, 1989 and therefore it will not come within the ambit of untoward accident. Aggrieved by the said common order, the appellants/applicants have preferred the present appeals. 6 VS,J CMA No.189 and 192 of 2020 9. Heard both sides and perused the record. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, which includes postmortem reports, copies of FIRs, the case diary and the intimation of the Station Master to the GRP and despite such categorical evidence, the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petitions without proper consideration of the material on record. Hence, it is prayed that the appeals be allowed and just and reasonable compensation be awarded. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-railways submitted that the Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, has rightly dismissed the applications. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 12. The point that arises for consideration in these appeals is: “Whether the deceased were bona fide passengers who died in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, and, if so, whether the applicants are entitled to compensation.” 13. It is not in dispute that the death of both the deceased occurred on the railway track. Exs.A1 – FIRs, Ex.A2 – Inquest Reports, and Ex.A3 – Postmortem Reports marked in both cases clearly establish that the deaths were due to “multiple injuries in a railway run over”. Thus, the factum of death in a railway accident stands proved. 14. The main contention of the respondent–Railways is that the deceased were not bona fide passengers, as no journey tickets were recovered from the 7 VS,J CMA No.189 and 192 of 2020 scene of occurrence. However, it is to be noted that in the claim applications, a specific plea was taken that the journey tickets were lost in the course of the incident. In cases of accidental fall from a running train, loss of tickets cannot be ruled out, particularly when the bodies were found in a mutilated condition. 15. Further, Ex.A4 – copy of intimation sent by the Station Master to GRP assumes significance. The said document evidences that information was promptly given regarding the detection of the dead bodies on the railway track, thereby supporting the case of the applicants that the incident occurred in the course of train travel. 16. Moreover, though the respondent – Railways relied upon Ex.B1 – D.R.M. Report to contend that the accident occurred when the deceased tried to get down from the train near to their village where there is no stoppage and therefore, it amounts to self inflicted injury for which no compensation is payable by the Railways, it is to be noted that the Hon‟ble Apex Court, in Union of India v. Rina Devi1, while considering the issue with respect to the concept of self-inflicted injury, after analyzing various precedents and also conflicting views expressed by various High Courts, ultimately concluded as under: “25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of “self- inflicted injury” would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on “no fault theory”. We may in this 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572 8 VS,J CMA No.189 and 192 of 2020 connection refer to the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar [(2019) 12 SCC 398] laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on “no fault theory” under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an “untoward incident” entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.” 17. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the law is very clear that a case of death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding train will have to be treated as an untoward incident, entitling the victim to compensation. Proviso to Section 124-A of the Act has exception only to cases of suicide or attempted suicide or criminal negligence for which there should be an intention and mens rea to commit such an act. Since, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clearly demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the incident has occurred not on account of any of the exceptions carved out under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, the compensation cannot be denied. 18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the documentary evidence adduced by the applicants, this Court is of the considered view that the deceased had fallen from the running train and died in an untoward incident. Consequently, they are to be treated as bona fide passengers and compensation has to be paid by the Railways, as per the provisions of the Railways Act. The Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this 9 VS,J CMA No.189 and 192 of 2020 Court, erred in dismissing the claim petitions, without properly appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, the common order under challenge is liable to be set aside and the appeals are to be allowed, granting compensation to the applicants. 19. Accordingly, the impugned common order dated 20.04.2020 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.(IIu)/363/2012 & 375/2012 is hereby set aside and the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stand allowed, by allowing the claim of compensation. The appellants in both the appeals are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs.8,00,000/- for the appellants in C.M.A.No.189 of 2020 and Rs.8,00,000/- for the appellants in C.M.A.No192 of 2020) as per the Schedule in the Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways, dated 22.12.2016, from the respondent, for the death of the deceased. The aforesaid amount of compensation is directed to be paid by the respondent- Railways within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the applicants are permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with law in equal shares. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 26.02.2026 KGR