APHC010369042019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: Between: 1. SK SUBHANI, S/O NASARVALI AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC COOLIE R/O.D.NO.2 VILLAGE, DONAKANDA MANDAL PRAKASAM DIST 1. UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 495 OF SK SUBHANI, S/O NASARVALI AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC COOLIE R/O.D.NO.2-33,BETHELPURAM COLONY, BANDAPURAM VILLAGE, DONAKANDA MANDAL PRAKASAM DIST AND UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTH RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD Counsel for the Appellant: GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 495 OF 2019 SK SUBHANI, S/O NASARVALI AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC- 33,BETHELPURAM COLONY, BANDAPURAM ...APPELLANT REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTH ...RESPONDENT J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 495 OF 2019 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) in O.A II (U) No.116 of 2012, dated 07.02.2019 the Applicant has preferred the present Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the claim application of the applicant before the Tribunal are that on 23.04.2011 the injured by holding journey ticket bearing No.38388801 from Ex.Donakonda to Markapuram Road was travelling in train No.57624 Guntur - Kachiguda passenger and accidentally he fell down from said running train at Gajjalakonda railway station due to jerk, which lead to crush of his left leg separated besides left hand fracture and other injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Markapuram by 108 ambulance where his left leg below hip and above middle thigh was amputated. Hence, Applicant – Shaik Subhani (hereinafter called as the injured), has filed a Claim Petition under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the Respondent, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 3. Respondent filed written statement stating that injured was not a bona- fide passenger and as per statement of guard he was an un-authorized hawker. DRM Report was also filed along with other documents and stated that the 3 injured got down from the compartment at Gajjalakonda Railway Station and tried to re-board while the train was on run. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial by the tribunal: 1) Whether the Applicant was a bona-fide passenger of the Train and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident? 2) Whether the Applicant is entitled to claim the compensation as prayed for and to what relief? 5. During the course of trial, the claimant got examined himself as A.W.1 and he also got examined one Dr. M.Lakshminaray as A.W.2 and got marked Ex.A.1 – Attested copy of journey ticket, Ex.A.2 – attested copy of message, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of memo, Ex.A.4 – attested copy of police intimation, Ex.A.5 – statement of injured, Ex.A.6 – photograph of applicant, Ex.A.7 – discharge card, Ex.A.8 – copy of disability certificate, Ex.A.9 – I.D card of A.W.2, Ex.A.10 – case sheet from Osmania General Hospital. On behalf of Respondent, none were examined but Ex.R.1 – Divisional Railway Manager’s report got marked. 6. Upon hearing both counsel, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal held that the injured was neither a bonafide passenger of the train nor suffered an untoward incident and dismissed 4 the claim of the Applicants. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent. 8. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the injured was not a bonafide passenger. The learned tribunal without appreciating the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act, simply dismissed the claim of the Appellants. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed. 9. Learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent would contend that the injured was not possessing valid railway journey ticket at the time of untoward incident. Therefore he cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. The claim is not fall under Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Therefore there is no fault or lapse on the part of the railways in the alleged mishap; the Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the Appellant herein. The learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim made by the Appellant after considering the submissions of Respondent. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed. 10. Perused the record. 5 11. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that this matter is squarely covered by an order of Court order dated 29.09.2023 passed in C.M.A.No. 17 of 2020, wherein this court following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Kamukayi & Ors. V. Union of India and Ors”1, wherein it was held as follows: “This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analyzing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India and the judgments of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India and also considered the judgment of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India6 and in para 29 concluded as thus- “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 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828 (2019) 12 SCC 391 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.” 12. In Rina Devi’s case cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, on the burden of proof, which emphasized that any person found dead or injured on railway premises is presumed to be a bona fide passenger unless the railway 1 Civil A ppeal No.3799 of 2023 6 administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse. 13. In the instant case, the burden of proof shifts on the Respondent/ Railways, as the Appellant proved that he sustained injuries in the untoward incident by marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. None was examined on behalf of the Respondents to rebut the evidence of the Applicants. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the applicant was sustained injuries in the untoward incident while travelling in a train. 14. In the light of judgment of “Union of India v. Radha Yadav2”, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “because death is proved due to outcome of untoward incident of the deceased being a bona fide passenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded.” 15. During hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant drawn the attention of this Court with regard to Section 123 and also 25 (c) of the Railway Act, 1989, which deals “untoward incident”, which reproduced hereunder: Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989 123. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in section 124; 2 (2019) 3 SCC 410 7 (b) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:— (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger. 25 [(c) “untoward incident” means— (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the material available on record and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Kamukayi’s case (supra), it can be observed that the Respondent is failed to establish as to whether the injured/ deceased is not a bona fide passenger. 8 Claimant have discharged their burden by filing an affidavit with relevant facts, hence the burden shifts on the Railways. The amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries as per the schedules in Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016. 17. Coming to the interest part is concerned, learned counsel for the Respondent relied on Common Order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.1074 of 2018, wherein this Court at Para 8 was held as follows: “ However, in a subsequent Judgment referred above, the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the payment of interest and payment of enhanced compensation, was pleased to observe that: In case of death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs. 4,00,000/-. If after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs. 8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claim would be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/-. If however, 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 idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment to the extent possible”. 18. As the claimant was amputated his leg below hip and above middle thigh and sustained left hand fracture and other injuries, as per part III, Sl.No.16 of the schedule, the Claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.7,20,000/-. 9 19. Following the decisions cited supra, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The impugned judgment dated 07.02.2019 passed in OA/II/U/No.116 of 2012 by the learned Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The Appellant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- from the Respondent for the injuries sustained by him in the untoward incident. 20. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. It is made clear that the respondent, Union of India, is directed to pay the compensation as stated supra within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 26.02.2026 KS/ KK