1 VS,J CMA_191 of 2020 APHC010290472020 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: 191/2020 Between: 1. B.SREERAMULU, S/O LATE B.R.RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 2. B.LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O B.SREERAMULU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O D,NO. 6-29-A, POTHUKUNTA VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR 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 4-5-2020 passed in O.A.II(U) No.364 of 2013on the file of the Railway ClaimsTribunal,Amaravati Bench,Guntur for the following among other, Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2 VS,J CMA_191 of 2020 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT:- Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by the appellants/claimants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi in OA/II(u) 364 of 2013 vide judgment dated 04.05.2020, the appellants/claimants filed this appeal. 2. The appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased. The respondent is the South Central Railway, Secunderabad represented by its General Manager. It is the case of the appellants that on 20.03.2013, at about 02.00 p.m., after completing his work at Government Polytechnic and darshan at Kadiri temple, the deceased along with his friend by name Gavvala Mahesh went to Kadiri railway station to go to Dharmavaram and purchased a combined train journey ticket and boarded a train bearing No.57475. At KM No.66/8-9, near name board of Kadiri railway station, the deceased slipped accidentally due to heavy crowd and also due to speed, jolt and sudden jerks of the train, as a result of which, he sustained several injuries and died on the spot at about 04.00 p.m. Thus, the claimants filed an application before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the accidental death of the deceased in the aforementioned untoward incident. 3. The respondent contested the claim application by contending that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that no journey ticket was recovered from his dead body. Hence requested to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 3 VS,J CMA_191 of 2020 1) Whether the Applicant(s) is/are 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 and to what relief? 5. During the course of trial, the Tribunal examined A.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the appellants and marked Exs.A1 to A7 on their behalf. The respondent relied on the statutory investigation report which is marked as Ex.R1. 6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, came to a conclusion that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger of the train in question as no ticket was recovered from his body. Further, the Tribunal observed that the friend of the deceased, who was examined as A.W.2 was not present at the time of the accident as his presence was not mentioned in the investigation report. Hence, as no reliable evidence was put forth by the claimants, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application vide the impugned judgment. 7. Heard Sri. P.L. Rao,learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. M. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Railway Claims Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the Tribunal should receive a liberal and wider interpretation in such cases and not a narrow and technical one. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellants have discharged their initial burden by adducing oral and filing a sworn affidavit and the burden shifted upon the respondent to prove the same, but there is no rebuttal evidence. Without considering the same, the Tribunal came to an 4 VS,J CMA_191 of 2020 erroneous view that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train in question. Hence requested to allow the appeal by awarding compensation. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment passed by the Tribunal in all aspects and contended that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application filed by the appellants as the deceased was not a bonafide passenger o the train. 10. Perused the entire material available on record. Though the claimants contended that the death of the deceased was due to an accidental fall from the train bearing No.57475 while he was going to Dharmavaram from Kadiri, which was also supported by the evidence of the friend of the deceased (A.W.2) who accompanied him at the time of accident, the Tribunal, while dismissing the claim application, observed that the presence of A.W.2 was doubtful at the time of the accident. Furthermore, it held that though Nokia mobile phone, motor cycle key and Rs.49/- were recovered from the deadbody of the deceased, the alleged combined ticket was not recovered and took an adverse inference about the bonafide travel of the deceased. 11. It can be seen from the report of the Divisional Railway Manager dated 21.05.2014 that on receipt of information about the incident, one Sri. C. Venkateswarlu, HC.96/GRP/Kadiri visited the spot and found one Nokia mobile, cash of Rs.45/- with the deceased, however, it is stated that no ticket was found. Accordingly, he registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2013. It can be seen from the inquest report that the deceased got down at Rayalacheruvu railway station for drinking water and when the train started, he fell down while trying to board the train and 5 VS,J CMA_191 of 2020 sustained injuries. It is clearly stated in the divisional railway manager’s report that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that he sustained injuries due to his negligence and own mistake as he tried to board the running train. 12. The Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs. Rina Devi1, held that mere absence of ticket with an injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger and that the initial burden would 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. In the case on hand, admittedly, the friend of the deceased, who was examined as A.W.2 in his affidavit has specifically stated that he along with the deceased had purchased a combined journey ticket and boarded the train No.57475 at about 03.00 p.m. Now, onus to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger lies on the respondent, which was admittedly not discharged. Even otherwise, as discussed earlier, it is clear that from the report of the Divisional Railway manager that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. In such a case, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim application of the claimants vide the impugned judgment. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set-aside and the appeal stands allowed by ay allowing the claim of compensation. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pending the present case, the 1st appellant passed away. Thus, the 2nd appellant is 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 1 AIR 2018 SC 2362 6 VS,J CMA_191 of 2020 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 2nd appellant shall be entitled to 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. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:11.03.2026. Gss