APHC010382822020 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: 252/2020 Between: 1. PENTAKOTA UMA, W/O KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD. 2. PENTAKOTA KRISHNA, S/O LATE VENKANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC- DELIVERY MAN, HP GAS BOTH ARE R/O H.NO.12-74- 30, LAKSHMI NAGAR, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, through General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bubaneshwar. ...RESPONDENT Appeal against orders Memorandum of Civil Misc. Appeal having been aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2020 passed in O.A.(II).No.224/2015 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P BHASKAR 2. P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J C.M.A.No.252 of 2020 JUDGMENT: The appellants/applicants filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 19.10.2020 in O.A.II (U) No.224 of 2015 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.10,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Pentakota Lakshmana Kumar in a train accident that occurred on 31.10.2014. 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, 1987 read with Section 124-A and 125 of Indian Railways Act, 1989 the case of the applicants, in brief, is as follows: The deceased was studying Second Year Intermediate in Masterminds Junior College at Guntur by staying in the Hostel. He visited his parents at Visakhapatnam during Deepavali festival. After celebrating Deepavali festival, his father asked him to go to college and on 27.10.2014 he send off him by got boarding the deceased in the train in Duvvada Railway Station. Though the deceased told that he will go to college, but he did not go to college, as the fees of the college has to be paid by him and hence, he went to the home of Akari Malleswara Rao, who is the friend of his father. Accordingly, with a view to approach his parents at Visakhapatnam for the purpose of getting fees amount, the deceased along with said Malleswara Rao went to Vijayawada 3 VS,J C.M.A.No.252 of 2020 Railway Station on 30.10.2014 night at 10.30 pm, where the said A.Malleswara Rao purchased General Ticket for Visakha Express and handed over the same to the deceased and the said Malleswara Rao got boarded the deceased in the Visakha Express train and returned to his home. The deceased while travelling in Visakha Express train, accidentally slipped and fallen down from the said train on 31.10.2014 at about 8.00 hours near NAD Bridge in the middle of KM No.872/25 and 872/27, as a result of which, he sustained severe injury to the head and his left leg was cut at the knee and fallen in the middle of the track, due to which, he died. 04. The respondent Railway filed written statement along with the Divisional Railway Manager’s report denying the various averments made in the application. It is contended that there is no cause of action for the applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Sec.123(c) or Sec.124-A of the Railways Act. The respondent further denied that the deceased accidentally slipped and fallen down from the Visakha Express on 31.10.2014 at about 8.00 hours near NAD Bridge in the middle of KM No.872/25-27 and died on the spot and the deceased is bonafide passenger, applicants are put to strict proof of the same. 05. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the applicant (s) is/are dependants of the deceased? 4 VS,J C.M.A.No.252 of 2020 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?” 06. On behalf of the appellants/applicants, 2nd applicant was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. None was examined on behalf of the respondent. However, Divisional Railway Manager’s report is marked as Ex.R1. 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 circumstances and the material available on record. The Tribunal ought to have seen that whenever a passenger fallen from the train, there is no 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 there is no oral or documentary 5 VS,J C.M.A.No.252 of 2020 evidence adduced 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? 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 that one Malleswara Rao purchased General ticket for Visakha Express and handed 6 VS,J C.M.A.No.252 of 2020 over the same to his son and documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A2- inquest report, Ex.A6- final report and Ex.R1 DRM report supports 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. (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, deposed that one Malleswara Rao accompanied his deceased son to Vijayawada Railway station on 30.10.2014, purchased General ticket and handed over to him. His son boarded the Visakha Express train in the presence of Malleswara Rao at night of 30.10.2014. The deceased while travelling in Visakha Express train, accidentally slipped and fallen down from the said train on 31.10.2014 at 7 VS,J C.M.A.No.252 of 2020 about 08.00 hours near NAD Bridge in the middle of KM No.872/25 and 872/27, as a result of which, he sustained severe injury to the head and his left leg was cut at the knee and fallen in the middle of the track, due to which, he died. 14. Admittedly, Ex.A2 is the inquest report and inquest was attended by father of the deceased. Para 8 of inquest report shows that the corpse is lying in supine in between the Visakhapatnam – Gopalapatnam railway stations in the middle of the KM No.872/25 and 872/27. Para 9, 15 and 22 of the inquest report reveals that “the deceased was fallen from Up line train i.e., the train going towards Visakhapatnam and due to injuries sustained by the deceased there is scope to cause of death. Therefore, it is disclosed that the said death was occurred due to accidental fall.” Ex.A3 is the PME report. The cause of the death as per PME is “Head injury associated with crushed injury left thigh & leg.” The above documents supports the case of claimants by proving that the deceased accidentally dropped 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 is suspected in this case. By examining AW1 on oath before the Tribunal the claimants have proved that the deceased is a bonafide passenger, but the 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. 8 VS,J C.M.A.No.252 of 2020 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 only) along with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization, in equal shares. The amount thus computed is directed to be paid 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