1 APHC010720432022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2/2023 Between: 1. M SAI PRASAD DIED, ( DIED ON 04-05-2022 ) 2. M. NALINI,, W/O. M. SAI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE R/O. D.NO.21-11-13/C NEAR GADDE BABURAO STREET MADHURA NAGAR VIJAYAWADA-12 ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. By its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderbad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: PASALA PONNA RAO (SC FOR CENT GOVT.) JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO (SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL GOVT.) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2/2023 J U D G M E N T: 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short (CMA) has been preferred by the Applicants/Claimants aggrieved by the Judgment in Case No.OA/II(u) 307 of 2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi bench, Guntur, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the Claimants. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are arrayed as they arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellants as Claimants and Respondent as Respondent 2. Claimants being the parents of their unmarried son – Late M.Venkat Sai Kiran (hereinafter called as the deceased), have filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the Respondent – Railway Administration, seeking compensation for his death, as a result of untoward incident that occurred on 14.09.2011. 3. The facts in nutshell are that – in the afternoon hours of 14.11.2011 the deceased went to Guntur Railway Station, purchased a passenger train journey ticket bearing No.40256773 from Guntur to Dhone and boarded the train No.57328 Guntur – Dhone passenger in a general compartment. When travelling, suddenly slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train at KM No.252/506 in between Nandyal and Panyam Railway Stations due to speed and sudden jerks of the train, as a result of which, he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. 4. Respondent – Railway administration filed the Written Statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the 3 case was a case of suicidal death and not accidental fall from the train and as such, the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and hence, the claim application deserves to be dismissed, with costs. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues – 1) Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona-fide 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. During the course of enquiry, the 1st applicant got examined himself as A.W.1 and also got marked Ex.A.1 – attested copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 – attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of postmortem examination report, Ex.A.4 – original death certificate, Ex.A.5 – photocopy of ration card. On behalf of Respondent, none was examined, but got marked Ex.R.1 – Statutory Investigation report of DRM, Guntur. 7. On considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by coming to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. In view of the finding on issue No.2, the Tribunal has concluded that there is no need to deal with issues No.1 and 3. 8. Heard both sides and perused the record. 9. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the dead body of the deceased was reported to the Railway Officials 12 hours after the incident on 15.09.2011. The Tribunal has 4 erroneously held that the deceased committed suicide, based on the statement of Gateman which was annexed with the DRM’s report. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the deceased committed suicide on the ground that the body of the deceased was cut into two pieces. As per the Inquest Report – Ex.A.2, the journey ticket was recovered from the dead body, issued on 14.09.2011 at 12.26 hours from ticketing Counter of Guntur. On a perusal of Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2 and as well as Ex.R.1, it can be noticed that the Railway Police registered a case in Crime No.59 of 2011 under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code (suspicious death) on receiving message from the Railway Guard on 15.09.2011 at 8.10 hours. The F.I.R., discloses that on 15.09.2011 prior to 8.10 hours Key-man found a male dead body, aged about 24 years at KM No.252/506 between Nandhyal – Panyam Railway Stations. Even as per Ex.A.2 – inquest report it can be observed - “that on 14.09.2011 the deceased in order to go to Dhone went to ticketing Counter, Guntur and purchased a journey ticket, the same was confirmed in the inquest report which discloses that there is a train journey ticket from Guntur to Done vide ticket No.40256773 dated 14.09.2011 purchased at 12.l26 hours in Guntur ticketing center, ticket value Rs.44/-“. The statement of A.W.1 was supported by inquest report with regard to availability of ticket. 10. It can also be noticed that Ex.R.1 – DRM’s report was filed on 21.06.2012 after a span of nine (09) months from the date of incident. As per Rule 6(iv) of Railway passenger (Manager of Investigation of Untoward Incidents Rules) 2020 the Divisional Security Commissioner shall submit a report within 60 days from the date of untoward incident, for onward submission to the Divisional Railway Station. However, for the reasons best known to them, in the present case, they have submitted the DMR’s report after 60 days. 11. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the incident to support D.R.M’s report that the deceased committed suicide. The statement given by one Sri 5 K.V.Sinivasa Rao, working as Head-Constable of R.P.F Post, Nandhyala which is annexed to the DRM’s report also discloses that he has noticed one male dead body lying at KM No.252/506, Nandhyal – Panyam Railway Stations and it was found that the head of deceased was in the middle of the Track, whereas the remaining body lying on the side of the track and on checking by Head Constable, one journey ticket was also found in the possession of the deceased. The report of untoward incident submitted by the Railway authorities also disclose that Sri N.Chinna Venkateswarlu, on-duty Key-man informed that he noticed one person, aged about 24 years, fell down under the train and died. It can also be observed that there is no eyewitness to the incident to support the report of the DRM that the deceased committed suicide. If at all the statement of above persons are believed, there is no explanation as to why the Railway Police filed F.I.R under Section 174 of Cr.P.C for the reasons best known to the Railways. None of its officials, including the author of Ex.R.1 – report i.e., the Divisional Railway Manager was examined before the Tribunal. By placing reliance on the report of the Divisional Railway Manager, the Tribunal has come to an erroneous conclusion that the deceased has committed suicide and denied the compensation to the applicants. 12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo & another v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway, 2018 ACJ 1460, Para 3 of the said Judgment reads as under: “3. Though role 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules) mandates the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward Incident, admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before the RCT on 27.2.2005 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23.4.2009, According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased detrained from the moving train of D Cabin without stoppage of the rain and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid 6 basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railway was accepted by the RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal, i.e., FAO No.535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of the RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same by cryptic and non- speaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award and the reasons assigned in support of the same do not warrant any interference." A further reference can be made to the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India v. A. Geetha & others, 2018 ACJ 941 Paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment read as under: "12. The pleadings of the applicants in the original application disclose that Smt. Sandhya was travelling alone in the train. Her bag containing material things including the ticket taken by her for travelling purpose was lost. Her body was found lying in the railway track. It is pertinent to note that even though disclosure of the facts is made in the original application, the respondent has not ventured to controvert those. The respondent has also no case that any enquiry in the matter was conducted by them and the contrary was revealed to them. The only objection raised was regarding the non-pulling of the chain by co-passengers and non- production of the ticket by the claimants. The lady being a passenger not in accompaniment with any of the original applicants, it is difficult for the latter to state specifically about the incident. The attending circumstances being so, the authorities of the Railway, being in reachable space to the place of incident, are the appropriate person to conduct an enquiry and to get convinced themselves about the untoward Incident rather than the original applicants, who were in a remote place at the relevant time. The authorities of the railway cannot take advantage of their inaction to conduct an enquiry and the incapacity of the original applicants to place on record evidence supporting their claim. In the case on hand, the attending circumstances drawn out from the pleadings of the original applicants are leaning in favour of the original applicants rather than those advanced by the respondent. 14. The dictum in the decision supra rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one among us, was a constituent member, is also relevant in the context and is extracted herein below:- "B. We have considered all the relevant inputs. To us it appears that Chap 13 of the Railways Act reflects the vibrant compassion of the legislature in favour of the victims of untoward Incidents that take place during the operation of the Railways Even though there is no specific liability known to law on established led principles obliging the railways to compensate the victim of such untoward incidents, Law declares that Railways shall compensate the victims. More than enforcement of a legal right, the statutory provision recognizes compassion and concern which the Railway 7 administration must show to the unfortunate victims of the untoward incidents. An anxious perusal of the relevant statutory provisions and the rules must convince that the framers of the statute and the rules did not reckon the proceedings as an adversarial litigative process at all. If there be any semblance of doubt on this aspect it will be appropriate to frequent oneself with the stipulations of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2007), R.7 to 10 clearly show that the burden is on the local police and the officers of the force to conduct an enquiry/investigation Into the cause of the incident and come to appropriate conclusion. To us it appears that the provisions clearly reveal due recognition and acceptance of the helplessness of the claimants who may be far far away from the scene/venue of the incident and consequentially incapable of adducing very compelling evidence in support of their claim. The realistic acceptance of the plight of the victims is perfectly clear from the mechanism stipulated for enquiry/investigation under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. The burden really is not placed entirely on the shoulders of the victims or claimants. But, the burden is placed on the shoulders of the Railway and its officials to conduct a proper enquiry to ascertain whether claimants are really entitled to amounts or not." 13. In support of contention of learned Counsel for Appellants, also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Suchitra as (ash) vs Union of India dt.11.04.2019 wherein it was held as hereunder – “There may be a number of hypothetical theories as to how the deceased suffered death, but the theory which is in consequence with the evidence on record has to be accepted. Court is not concerned with the academic exercise and theoretical possibilities, but with practical relation derived from evidence adduced in a particular case during trial. When a person falls down from a speeding train, he sustained multiple injuries in consequence of repetitive impacts and rolling depending upon the surface on which the body falls together with the relative velocity of falling body and that aspects not having been adequately taken care of by the learned Tribunal Judge, it cannot be concluded with all certainty that the finding reached by the Tribunal making out the case of run over upon considering the recovery of the body of the deceased from inside the railway track was the one and only probability, reasonably drawable from a given set of facts and thereby leaving aside the other probabilities to go away at the same time”. 8 In view of the above observations made by the Court and the Judgments referred above, this Court is of the opinion that the Claimants are entitled for payment of compensation. 14. As per the schedule given by the Ministry of Railways vide notification dated 02.12.2016, the Railways are liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) for the death arising in railway accident. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of their son – Sri M.Venkat Sai Kiran. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the Judgment dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench, Guntur, in Case No.OA/II(u) 307 of 2011 is hereby set aside. The Respondent Railway shall pay the compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) to the appellants/claimants within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment, with interest at 6% p.a from the date of presentation of this Appeal. Out of the said compensation, the appellants/applicants 1 and 2 are entitled to half (1/2) share each. 16. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 05.02.2026. 9 266 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2/2023 DATED 05.02.2026 KS