APHC010413982021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: Between: 1. CHOKKAKULA SUJATHA, W/O LATE LAKSHMANARAO 49 YEARS 2. CHOKKAKULA GEETHIKA SANTOSH, D/O LATE LAKSHMANARAO AGED 28 YEARS 3. CHOKKAKULA SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O LATE LAKSHMANARAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 4. CHOKKAKULA SATYANARAYANA, 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 265 OF 2021 CHOKKAKULA SUJATHA, W/O LATE LAKSHMANARAO 49 YEARS CHOKKAKULA GEETHIKA SANTOSH, D/O LATE LAKSHMANARAO CHOKKAKULA SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O LATE LAKSHMANARAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, CHOKKAKULA SATYANARAYANA, (DIED) ...APPELLANT(S) AND THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): Counsel for the Respondent: M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 2021 CHOKKAKULA SUJATHA, W/O LATE LAKSHMANARAO 49 YEARS CHOKKAKULA GEETHIKA SANTOSH, D/O LATE LAKSHMANARAO CHOKKAKULA SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O LATE LAKSHMANARAO, ...APPELLANT(S) REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH ...RESPONDENT 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 265 OF 2021 JUDGMENT: The Appellants herein are the Applicants No. 1 to 4 before The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.II (U) No. 261 of 2014. 2. The Appellants herein are the wife, children and father of Chokkakula Lakshman Rao (hereinafter referred to as “deceased’), has made a claim before the learned Tribunal for Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest from the Respondent/ Railways on account of death of the deceased due to untoward incident that occurred on 18.10.2013 in order to travel from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam by Ratnachal Express. While reaching Vijayawada station on Platform No.5, the deceased in order to secure seat in the train was proceeding from Platform No.4 to Platform No.5, while passing Platform No.4 in a hurried manner slipped from the edge of the platform and all of a sudden a shunting rail engine came and crushed the deceased at the edge of Platform No.4. The deceased was taken out from the spot and moved to the hospital by an ambulance, by the time he was declared as dead. The deceased was a bonafide passenger and had died on account of an untoward incident. As such, the Applicants filed claim petition. 3 3. The Respondent filed Written Statement by denying the claim of the Appellants herein and inter alia contended that it is a case of trespass and the death was not on account of an accidental fall from the train. The inquiries with the passengers revealed that the victim crossed the railway track from Platform No.3 to 4 and when he tried to climb to Platform No.4, he was hit by the shunting engine. Death of deceased was occurred due to his own conduct and imprudent act of trespassing the railway track without using foot over bridge, which was very much available on Platforms at Vijayawada Station. Purchasing of journey ticket and occurrence of the accident in the premises of Railways by hitting a train engine do not constitute an untoward incident as defined in Provision to Section 124-A and 123(c) of the Railways Act. Therefore, the Railways is not liable to pay any compensation to the Appellants herein and requested to dismiss the claim. 4. During enquiry, the Tribunal framed issues for determination would be: 1. Whether the applicants are dependents 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 Applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief? 5. During enquiry, the Appellants were examined as AW-1 and 2; on behalf of Appellants, the documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A9. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Santosh Kumar Reddy, Loco Pilot was examined as RW-1 and marked the Report of the Divisional Railway Manager as Ex.R1. 4 6. The learned Tribunal after hearing on both sides, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bonafide passenger and dismissed the Claim Application. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed. 7. Heard Mr. P.L.Rao, learned counsel for the Appellants and Ms.M. Uma Devi, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent. 8. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellants would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and also the deceased was not sustained injuries due to an untoward incident. The learned tribunal without appreciated the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act and simply dismissed the claim of the appellant. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed. 9. Learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent would contend that the deceased was not in possession of any railway journey ticket. 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. The DRM report confirms that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he did not die in an untoward incident. 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 Appellants herein. The learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim made by the Appellants 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 Appellants submitted as FIR, the incident occurred at 5.25 hrs on 18.10.2013. As per records the deceased was purchased a journey ticket from ticket counter available on Platform No.1 at 5.24 hrs. Therefore, the deceased is a bonafide passenger. Therefore, death of the deceased is not in dispute. 12. Learned counsel for the Appellants further stated that this matter is squarely covered by this 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 1 Civil A ppeal No.3799 of 2023 6 basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” 13. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has also discussed the same verdict cited supra in “Union of India v. Rina Devi 2 ” case also and passed Award. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the case law cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore the appellant is entitled the claim as prayed for. 14. 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 administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse. 15. In the instant case, the burden of proof shifts on the Respondent/ Railways, as the Appellants proved the death of the deceased while travelling in train and also relied on the FIR and Final Report. Therefore, it is presumed that the deceased was dead during travel in train. 16. In the light of judgment of “Union of India v. Radha Yadav3”, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 2 http://Indiankanoon.org/doc/94898543/ 3 (2019) 3 SCC 410 7 “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.” 17. During hearing, learned counsel for the Appellants 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; (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 8 (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. 18. 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 that whether the deceased is not a bona fide passenger. Since the burden lies on the Respondent Railways the adequate compensation is liable to be paid to the Appellants herein. 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. 19. 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 9 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”. 20. In view of the aforesaid order, the claim is restricted to Rs. 8,00,000/- only for the death of the deceased. This Court opined that the amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries to the Applicants is as per the schedules in Gazette of India, Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016. 21. Following the decisions cited supra, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The impugned judgment dated 09.01.2020 passed in OA/II/U/No.261 of 2014 by the learned tribunal, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) from the Respondent for the death of the deceased. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the said compensation amount in equal shares. 22. 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. 10 23. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 11.02.2026 KK