APHC010332962019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 434/2019 Between: 1. RANDHI APPARAO, S/O APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 2-113, VELAMPETA, PEDAPUDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL. 2. RANDHI DURGA, W/O APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 2-113, VELAMPETA, PEDAPUDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal against orders this Memorandum of Civil Misc. Appeal, having been aggrieved by the Judgment dated 05.08.2019 passed in O.A.II (U) No.29 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P VIJAYA KUMARI The Court made the following: 2 VS,J CMA.No.434 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The appellants/applicants filed the present appeal challenging the judgment dated 05.08.2019 in O.A.II (U) No.29 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal dismissed the application of the applicants/appellants herein, as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Randhi Ashok Kumar in a train accident that occurred on 17.02.2012. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the case of the applicants, in brief, is as follows: In the early hours of 17.02.2012, the deceased/Randhi Ashok Kumar accompanied by his father went to Samalkot Railway station and his father purchased a passenger ticket upto Visakhapatnam for him and the deceased boarded the Machilipatnam passenger. Later, parents were informed by the police that the deceased accidentally fell down from the train between Annavaram and Hamsavaram and died on 17.02.2012. 04. The respondent Railway administration contested the claim of the applicants by filing the written statement and denied all the allegations/averments made in the claim application. Respondent has further 3 VS,J CMA.No.434 of 2019 stated that there is no eye witness to the incident. The deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the said train and it was not a case of accidental fall. As such, the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Hence, the claim application deserves to be dismissed with costs. 05. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the applicant (s) is/are dependant(s) of the 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 applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?” 06. On behalf of the appellants/applicant No.1, Randhi Apparao, filed his affidavit as A.W.1 and he was cross examined on 04.09.2017 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. The respondent Railway administration had relied on statutory investigation report of DRM, Vijayawada (Ex.R.1) containing several documents in evidence. 07. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the application. 08. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants/applicants preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application filed by the appellants without properly appreciating the facts and 4 VS,J CMA.No.434 of 2019 circumstances and the material available on record. The Tribunal ought to have seen that whenever a passenger fallen from the train, there is every chance of misplacement of the ticket and when there is no dispute regarding the fall of the deceased from the train there is no justification in dismissing the claim application. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the appellants have discharged their burden of proof by way of adducing oral and documentary evidence and the burden shifts upon the respondent to prove the same. This aspect has been held by the Court in the reported judgment in the case of Rena Devi Vs. Union of India. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the respondent except filing the DRM report failed to adduce any evidence to disprove the claim of the appellants and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the same, but went wrong in dismissing the claim petition. The Tribunal on one hand admitted that the deceased was a victim of accidental falling from the train and on the other hand came to an erroneous conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger which finding itself is perverse. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 09. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/respondent herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 5 VS,J CMA.No.434 of 2019 POINT: 11. The claim petition has been dismissed on the sole ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he was not in possession of a valid journey ticket and as such the cause of action does not fall under section 123( c) (2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 12. The learned Counsel for appellants argued that merely for non- recovery of journey ticket from the possession of the dead body, the tribunal held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger nor he died in an untoward incident, even though they proved through the evidence of AW1 who purchased ticket for his son and documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A2- inquest report, Ex.A7- final report and Ex.R1 DRM report in support of the case of claimants. He also relied on a judgment in Suman Sharma Vs. Union of India [2018 ACJ 2849]- Para 9 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. 6 VS,J CMA.No.434 of 2019 (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 bona-file passenger. 13. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that AW1 who is father of deceased, accompanied his deceased son to Samalkota Railway station on 17.02.2012, purchased ticket and handed over to him. His son boarded the Machilipatnam passenger train in his presence in the early hours of 17.02.2012. The dead body was first seen at 10.30 hrs i.e., during day time. 14. Admittedly, Ex.A2- inquest report, Ex.A3- postmortem report, Ex.A7- final report and Ex.R1 DRM report supports the case of claimants by proving that the deceased accidentally fell from the said train due to jerks of the train and died on the spot instantaneously due to receipt of severe injuries on his body. There is no foul play to suspect in this case. Even the facts of DRM report supports the case of claimants with regard to death of deceased due to the injuries sustained by accidental fall from a train. By examining AW1 on oath before the Tribunal the claimants have proved that the deceased is a bonafide passenger, but the 7 VS,J CMA.No.434 of 2019 respondent railway did not rebut the evidence of AW1. The above facts of the above judgment are aptly applicable to the present case facts. Hence, the appeal is to be allowed by awarding compensation to the claimants. 15. 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 to compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) in equal shares. The amount thus computed is directed to be deposited by the respondent Railways within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 04.02.2026 PBS