1 APHC010293912022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 251/2022 Between: 1. LINGUTLA ANUSUYA, W/O LATE SUDHAKAR NAIDU, AGE 42,HOUSE WIFE , 2. LINGUTLA MANJULA, D/O LATE SUDHAKAR NAIDU, AGE 43, OCCU.COOLI , BOTH ARE R/0 D NO 15/55-1, GANDHI NAGAR, TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, South central railway , Through General Manager, SECUNDERABAD Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. G VENKATESULU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. DIVYA DATLA(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 251/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short CMA) has been preferred by the Appellants/Applicants aggrieved by the Judgment in Case No.OA/II(U) No.22 of 2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench, Guntur, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the Applicants. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellants as Applicants and Respondent as Respondent 2. Applicants being wife and minor daughter of the deceased Late Sudhakar Naidu (hereinafter called as the “deceased”) have filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the Respondent – Railway Administration, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of deceased, as a result of untoward incident that occurred on 05.09.2015. 3. The facts of the claim application of the applicants before the Tribunal are that - on 05.09.2015 when the deceased was traveling from Muddanur to Yerraguntla in an unknown train, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from unknown running train near Challavaripalli, sustained injuries and died on the spot. In the said incident, the ticket was lost at the place of accident. 3 4. Respondent railway administration filed written statement stating that as per inquest report part VII no journey ticket was recovered and enquiry conducted to the alleged incident by DRM/GTL revealed that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger. Further, the applicants have not stated by which train the deceased was travelling. There was no eyewitness to the alleged incident. Hence, it is not an untoward incident. The alleged incident, if any, was caused by the conduct and criminal acts of the deceased, as such, it is not a case of accidental fall from train and it is a case of suspicious death. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim, without costs. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial/inquiry by the tribunal:- 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 dependent(s) of the deceased? 3) Whether the Applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed? 4) To what relief? 6. To prove the case of claimants, applicant No.1 examined as A.W.1, one Pedelarayala Ramanjaneyulu @ Ramu examined as A.W.2 and got marked Ex.A.1 – attested copy of First Information Report, Ex.A.2 – attested copy of Message from SS/Challavarpalli, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of postmortem report of deceased, Ex.A.4 – attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A.5 – attested copy of final report, Ex.A.6 – Family members certificate, Ex.A.7 – death certificate of 4 deceased, Ex.A.8 – photo copy of aadhaar card of applicant No.2, and Ex.A.8 Photo copy of aadhaar card of A.W.2. On behalf of Respondent railway, one Mr. Y.V.Subbaiah, IPF examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 – D.R.M Report. 7. On hearing the counsel for claimants and counsel for respondent, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal decided issue No.2 in favour of applicants by holding that the claimants are dependants on deceased. On issue No.1 held that as there is no direct evidence and ticket was not recovered from the possession of deceased, held that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger. Hence, issues No.3 and 4 are decided against claimants by dismissing the claim of the claimants. 8. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the claimants have preferred the present appeal on the grounds that – the tribunal failed to see that the deceased was bona-fide passenger, traveling in unknown passenger train from Tadipatri to Maddanur with a valid ticket and the burden lies on the Respondent to prove that he was not traveling; that mere journey ticket was not recovered from the possession of the deceased is not a ground to dismiss the claim of the claimants. The D.R.M report was filed by the respondent beyond 60 days from the date of incident hence, the applicants are entitled for compensation. Hence, prayed to set aside the Judgment dated 18.02.2022 in OA II (U) 22 of 2016 5 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur and to allow the appeal by awarding compensation to the appellants. 9. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and as well as the respondent and perused the material available on record. 10. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants argued that the journey ticket of the deceased was lost in the untoward incident. Non-recovery of journey ticket from the possession of deceased is not a ground for denying the compensation to the claimants. In support of her contention, she relied upon a judgment in Suman Sharma Vs. Union of India [2018 ACJ 2849] wherein at Para 9 of the judgment it was held as follows:- (i) Merely because there has been no recovery of any ticket from the body of the deceased would not be a ground to deny the benefit of the no fault liability, which is to be paid on account of the untoward incident under Section 124. (ii) The onus would fall to this extent upon the Railways that he was not a traveler on the train and had fallen down and thus, was a victim of untoward incident. (iii) The onus should be shifted upon the Railways to prove that he was a trespasser and was travelling without a ticket and not a bonafide passenger. She also relied on another judgment Union of India Vs. Rina Devi [AIR 2018 SC 2362] wherein it was held as follows:- “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”. 6 To prove that deceased had purchased a ticket, A.W.1 by affidavit on oath stated that one Ramu witnessed the purchase of train journey ticket by the deceased and the said ticket was lost during the incident. To prove the same, they also got examined said Shri Pedelarayala Ramanjaneyulu @ Ramu as A.W.2 who deposed that he is friend of the deceased, on 05.09.2015 at about 10.00 A.M deceased asked him to drop at Railway Station to go to Muddanur by train, both of them went to railway station on motor cycle, there the deceased purchased his journey ticket from Tadipatri to Muddanur and boarded the train approximately at about 11.00 A.M in general compartment with great difficulty, as there was heavy rush, then, he came to his house, but unfortunately, he came to know that deceased died by accidentally slipped and fell down from running train at KM 360/3-4 between Tadipatri – Challavaripalli stations. By examining A.W.1 and A.W.2 on oath, the claimants have discharged their burden that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger traveling in a passenger train. Ex.A.4 – attested copy of inquest report and Ex.A.5 – attested copy of final report, and Ex.R.1 – D.R.M report statements are also supports the case of claimants that the deceased was died in an untoward incident. Now the burden shifts to the railways to prove that deceased was not a bona-fide passenger and not died in an untoward incident but, the railways failed to discharge their burden to prove that the death of the deceased was not due to an untoward incident. 7 11. It is another contention of the counsel for appellants that the D.R.M report was filed beyond 60 days from the date of accident, hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation. In support of her contention, she relied on a judgment in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another Vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railway – 2018 ACJ 1460 wherein it was held as follows:- “Though Rule 7 of Railway Passengers (manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 mandates the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident., no such enquiry was conducted immediately after the accident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal the investigation into the incident was ordered”. In the present case also, the D.R.M report was not submitted within 60 days from the date of untoward incident. In view of my above discussion and judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the claimants, the appeal is to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench at Guntur, dated 18.02.2022 in OAII (U) 22 of 2016 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/-. The amount thus computed is directed to be paid by the respondent Railways within a period of eight weeks 8 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the applicants are permitted to withdraw the same [In case the claimant is a minor, his/her share shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till he/she attains majority). Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 25.02.2026. 9 270 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 251/2022 DATED 25.02.2026 KS