1 VS,J CMA_523 of 2019 APHC010389182019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 523/2019 Between: 1. L.KOTESWARAMMA, W/O. HANUMANTHARAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC, HOUSE WIFE 2. L.VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. HANUMANTHARAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC.BUSINESS 3. L.PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O. HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC. EMPLOYEE 4. L.SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. HANUMANTHARAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC, EMPLOYEE R/O. D.NO. 1.85, CHINAKAKANI VILLAGE MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, Rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against orders Counsel for the Appellant(S): 2 VS,J CMA_523 of 2019 1. INAMPUDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CMA_523 of 2019 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench in OA/II/u/348 of 2012, filed by the applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one L. Hanumantharao (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) resulted in an incident that occurred on 01.12.2011 whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the applicants. 2. The 1st appellant is the wife and the appellant Nos.2 to 4 are children of the deceased. The respondent is the South Central Railway, Secunderabad, represented by its General Manager. On 01.12.2011, the deceased, with a view to go to Guntur, reached Mangalagiri railway station along with his relative, purchased a second class train journey ticket to Guntur and while attempting to board the train bearing No.67273, he accidentally slipped, fell down and died on the spot. 3. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing a written statement denying the averments made in the application. It further contended that there was no eyewitness to the alleged accidental fall of the deceased and that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as no ticket was recovered from his dead body. It further contended that the body of the deceased was lying cut into two pieces and that he could not have died due to a fall from the train. Thus, requested to dismiss the application filed by the applicant. 4 VS,J CMA_523 of 2019 4. During the course of trial, the appellants got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and got examined A.Ws.1 and 2. On behalf of the respondent, the report of the Divisional Railway Manager (Ex.R1) was marked. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependent(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? 6. The Tribunal, after going through the material available before its, came to a conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the subject train and that his death did not occur due to the accidental fall from the train in question. Observing thus, the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the applicant vide the impugned judgment dated 13.09.2019. 7. Heard Mr. I. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Uma Devi Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 8. Perused the material available on record. It can be seen that the deceased, who is working as a watchman under the control of SE/P.Way/Guntur, with a view to go to Guntur, reached Mangalagiri railway station on 01.12.2011 along with A.W.2, purchased a journey ticket and is said to have boarded the train bearing No.67273. It can be seen from the evidence of A.W.2 that he accompanied the deceased to 5 VS,J CMA_523 of 2019 Mangalagiri railway station and that he witnessed the deceased enter into the railway station. On his way to Guntur, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train and died on the spot. 9. It can be seen from the inquest report that on 01.12.2011, at about 01.40 p.m., one R. Baburao, noticed the dead body of the deceased lying in Mangalagiri RS Yard, platform No.1, with the body cut into two parts. It is stated in the inquest report that apart from apparels worn by the deceased, a II class pass bearing No.404646, issued by the South Central Railway was present. A perusal of the Divisional Railway Manager’s report (Ex.R1) would show that the incident was not reported by any passenger nor there was any eye-witness about the fall of the deceased. The said report is also annexed by a statement of Station Superintendent of Mangalagiri railway station which states that an unknown person informed him that he noticed one person run over by the train No.67273. 10. Admittedly, the Tribunal, basing on the above observation, came to a conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as no train journey ticket was recovered from his dead body. Though a second class pass No.404646 issued by the South Central Railway was recorded to have been found with the deceased, the Tribunal has not taken it into consideration as the said pass was not a part of the CD file. When it is mentioned in the inquest report that a second class pass issued by the South Central Railway, recognizing him as its employee, was found with the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have considered it and should have treated the deceased as a bonafide passenger. Moreover, the statement of some unknown person was relied by the 6 VS,J CMA_523 of 2019 Tribunal who stated that he saw a person being run over by the train in question. The Tribunal erred in placing reliance on a statement allegedly given by an unknown person whose identity was neither verified nor subjected to any form of scrutiny. 11. Furthermore, the fact that a valid pass was recovered from the deceased during the inquest proceedings directly indicates that the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi 1 in paragraph No.17.4 held as under: “17.4 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 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. The Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that a valid pass was recovered from the dead body of the deceased, which is a part and parcel of the inquest report, rather than relying on an unverified statement of an unknown person. In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to set-aside the judgment passed by the Tribunal and that the appellants are entitled for compensation for the death of the deceased in an untoward incident that occurred on 01.12.2011. 1 2019 (3) SCC 572 7 VS,J CMA_523 of 2019 13. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal 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/- and if 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 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. 14. In the result, this appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:12.02.2026. Gss