CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS 53 of 2020 on 15 November 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 53 OF 2020

AppealfiledUnder Section 23of RailwayTribunal ActagainstJudgment dated 20-12-2019 passed in O.A.II (U) No.[92][ of][ 2015][ on][ the][ file]of the Hon’ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench at Guntur.Between:V Rama Krishna, S/o V. Satyanarayana, aged about 29 years, Occ.DocumentsWriter,D.NO.15-318-1,IndiraNagarGaddaMeda,Addanki, Prakasam District.

AND

...Appellant/Applicant

Union of India, Rep. by its the General Manager, South Central Railway,Secunderabad.

...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI GEETHA MADHURI N S

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J U M V PRASAD

(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following- JUDGMENT

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAOCIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.S.^ of 2020lUDGMENT:

Thepresent Appealispreferredbytheappellantaggrievedbythejudgment dated20.12.2019passedinOA/ll/u/92of 2015bytheRailwayClaimsTribunal,Amaravti Bench, Guntur (for short “the Tribunal").

2. Heard Smt. N. S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counselappearing for the appellant and Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learnedStanding Counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Theclaimofappellant/applicantbeforetheTribunalis that theapplication has beenfiledbytheappellant under Section 16 of the Railway ClaimsTribunalAct,1987readwithSection124A and125ofIndianRailwaysAct1989againsttherespondentRailwayadministration claiming compensationofRs.10,00,000/-withinterest fromthe dateof accident and costsfortheinjuries suffered by the applicantin an alleged untowardincident.The claimof the appellant isthat on 15.11.2014,the applicant went to Giddalur,andaftercompletionofsome work, on return journey he came to Giddalur RailwayTribunalis that theapplication has beenfiledbytheappellant under Section 16 of the Railway ClaimsTribunalAct,1987readwithSection124A and125ofIndianRailwaysAct1989againsttherespondentRailwayadministration claiming compensationofRs.10,00,000/-withinterest fromthe dateof accident and costsfortheinjuries suffered by the applicantin an alleged untowardincident.The claimof the appellant isthat on 15.11.2014,the applicant went to Giddalur,andaftercompletionofsome work, on return journey he came to Giddalur Railway station, purchaseda traintickettoNarasaraopetandboarded general compartment of train No.57623 Kacheguda-Guntur passenger.During the travel, whenthe trainhaltedat Jaikrishnapuram Railway station,toattendnaturalcall.he got down from the train and while re-boarding the[train.]the train started and, inthat process, the applicant slippedandfell down from thetrain. Hisrightleg was severelycrushed, cut and separated at kneeandhisleftfoodwasalso severely crushed, cut and separated at the ankle joint.Immediatelyhewastakenby108AmbulancetoGovernment GeneralHospitalat Cumbum by the Railwaystation staff and railway police.Later,hewasshiftedtoTulsi Multi Specialty Hospital, Guntur, where he was[treated]as inpatient. The applicant claimed that he lost train[ticket]duringtheprocessofshiftinghimfromtheplaceofoccurrence to the Hospital.

4. Therespondentfileditswrittenstatement anddeniedall the allegations made in the claim application.Itisadmittedthat theapplicantwasfoundininjuredconditionat Jaggambotla Krishnapuram Railway stationatabout 21.15 hrs. on 15.11.2014 and that Railway officials immediately attended to him andmadearrangementstotake him to Government General Hospital, Cumbum by[108]ambulance.Itis furtherstatedthattheclaimonthegrounds that when the Railway officials made enquiries[with]him, he did not produce any tickettothemandadmittedthathetravelledwithoutticket andalsostatedthattheapplicant was in intoxicated state at the time of incident.

5. Basingontheabovepleadings,theTribunalframed the following issues:framed the following issues:

i)Whether the applicant[s3 was a bonafide passenger of[the]train and sustainedinjuriesasa resultof an untowardincident?train and sustainedinjuriesasa resultof an untowardincident?

ii)Whethertheapplicantisentitledtoclaimthecompensation as prayed for and to what relief?compensation as prayed for and to what relief?

6. During course of the trial, the appellant/ applicant was examined as AW.l and he relied upon original/certifiedcopiesofphoto,previousjourneyticket,stationSuperintendent'sMemo,SHO'sMemo,Policeintimation.statement of injured, hospital records. Disability[certificate]and Aadhar card, which were markedasEx.AltoEx.A9.on behalf of the respondent, it only relied upon statutory investigation report-DRM report, which was marked asEx.Rl.

7. Basing on thefacts and circumstances, attendingcircumstances and preponderance of evidence on record,[the]Tribunal has dismissed theapplication.Challengingthesame, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal cametobefiled.

8. Onhearing,learnedcounselfortheappellantsubmits that the judgment of Tribunaliscontrarytolawand contrary to facts of the case and therefore the[same]isliable to be set aside.She further submits that the Tribunalhas shown narrow minded approach, while adjudicating[the]case.ShefurthersubmitsthattheTribunalerroneouslyappreciated the applicability of the provisions of[ 124-]A of the Railway Act, to the present case. She submits[that][ the]tribunal grossly erred in holding that the injuriessustained bythe applicant and also grossly held that the applicant[was][ not]a bona fide passenger TheTribunal adopted a very narrowapproach in this matter. She further submits that the[tribunal]erredinholding that theinjuries occurreddoesnotfallunder the definition of "untowardsubmits that the judgment of Tribunaliscontrarytolawand contrary to facts of the case and therefore the[same]isliable to be set aside.She further submits that the Tribunalhas shown narrow minded approach, while adjudicating[the]case.ShefurthersubmitsthattheTribunalerroneouslyappreciated the applicability of the provisions of[ 124-]A of the Railway Act, to the present case. She submits[that][ the]tribunal grossly erred in holding that the injuriessustained bythe applicant and also grossly held that the applicant[was][ not]a bona fide passenger TheTribunal adopted a very narrowapproach in this matter. She further submits that the[tribunal]erredinholding that theinjuries occurreddoesnotfallunder the definition of "untoward Incident". Further the tribunal grossly erred in appreciatingtheevidenceonrecordanddiscardedtheprimafaciedocumentsfiledbytheapplicant/appellant.Shefurthersubmitsthatinabsenceofanycogentevidence,notwithstanding anything containedin any other law,theRailway Administration shall be liable topay compensationas prescribed.

9. Per contra,learned counselfor the respondentwhiledenyingthecontentionsmadebytheappellant,contendedthat theclaim on the grounds that whentheRailwayofficials made enquirieswithhim,hedidnotproduce any ticket to them and admitted that he travelledwithout ticket. He further submits that the appellant[was][ m]intoxicated state at the time of incident.Therefore, there isno corroborative evidence to prove the claim of the appellantand hence prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Onperusingtheentirematerialavailableonrecord, this Court observed that, according to appellant,[he]was a bonafide passenger of train No.57623Kachiguda-Gunturpassengeron15.11.2014fromGiddalurtoNarasaraopet and during his journey he got down atrecord, this Court observed that, according to appellant,[he]was a bonafide passenger of train No.57623Kachiguda-Gunturpassengeron15.11.2014fromGiddalurtoNarasaraopet and during his journey he got down at JaggambotlaKrishnapuramRailwaystationforattendirtgNaturalcall and while reboarding the train started[and]heaccidentally fell down from the train at the Railway[station]premises and suffered injuries.It is also observed[that][ the]appellantadmittedthatrailwaystationofficialsandGovernment Railway police attended to him and sent[him][ to]GovernmentGeneralHospitalatcumbumby108ambulance.

11. Asseenfromthe impugnedjudgment,itisobserved that, the respondent admitted that the appellantwas found with injuries immediately after passing of[train]No.57623 Kachiguda-Guntur passenger on 15.11.2014 atJaggambotla Krishnapuram Railway station and that theyattendedtohimandsenthimby108ambulancetoHospital, escorted by a Railway staff.observed that, the respondent admitted that the appellantwas found with injuries immediately after passing of[train]No.57623 Kachiguda-Guntur passenger on 15.11.2014 atJaggambotla Krishnapuram Railway station and that theyattendedtohimandsenthimby108ambulancetoHospital, escorted by a Railway staff.

12. On a perusal of the records of the incident i.e..Form-1 and Form-2, wherein brief particulars of untowardincident are recorded as per the above forms, the appellantwas found injured prior to 21.15 hrs on 15.11.2014 at J.K.Railway station and that while reboarding the train[after]Form-1 and Form-2, wherein brief particulars of untowardincident are recorded as per the above forms, the appellantwas found injured prior to 21.15 hrs on 15.11.2014 at J.K.Railway station and that while reboarding the train[after]

attending nature'scall at the railway station theincidenthappened.

13. This Court further observed from the impugnedjudgment that, on 4.4.2017, as the appellant in chief statedthat "immediately the concerned railway station staff andofficials attended the spot, rendered the first-aid tookhisidentity, particulars of his journey,ticket,accidentandshifted him by 108 ambulance from there to GovernmentGeneral Hospital, Cumbum by them and admitted him as m-patientthroughRailwaypolice.Thiscorroboratesthestatements of the Assistant Station Master and the YardPointsman that they made enquirieswiththeappellantabout his travel and ticket and that the appellant hastoldthem that he was not in possession of anyvalidjourneyticket.judgment that, on 4.4.2017, as the appellant in chief statedthat "immediately the concerned railway station staff andofficials attended the spot, rendered the first-aid tookhisidentity, particulars of his journey,ticket,accidentandshifted him by 108 ambulance from there to GovernmentGeneral Hospital, Cumbum by them and admitted him as m-patientthroughRailwaypolice.Thiscorroboratesthestatements of the Assistant Station Master and the YardPointsman that they made enquirieswiththeappellantabout his travel and ticket and that the appellant hastoldthem that he was not in possession of anyvalidjourneyticket.

14. This Court further observedthat thought theappellant has lost the journey ticket during the accident, hehas produced original ticket, purportedly used by himforhis journey from Narasaraopet toGiddaluronthesamedate, which was markedasEx.A2.theclaimoftheappellant is that he lost his journey ticket for travel fromappellant has lost the journey ticket during the accident, hehas produced original ticket, purportedly used by himforhis journey from Narasaraopet toGiddaluronthesamedate, which was markedasEx.A2.theclaimoftheappellant is that he lost his journey ticket for travel from Giddalur to Narasaraopet alone, nothing else, includinghiISold ticket, money or any other document or valuablein theincident is improbable.

15. It is pertinent to mention herethat asper Section123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act,1989,theaccidentfallingofanypassenger fromatraincarryingpassers,readsasunder:

Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989123. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwiserequires,—(sjaccident means an accident of the nature described in section 124;"dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceasedpassenger, namely:—lil the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceasedpassenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;00 the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister,widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, ifdependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;OiO a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on thedeceased passenger;OjO the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceasedpassenger.25Rfil "untoward incidentmeans—UJ (i] the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section(1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities [Preventioni Act1987 (28 of 1987); or(iO the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity;(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person inor onany train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room orreservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other placewithin the precincts of a railway station;or(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carryingpassengers.16.Ononehand,thecontentionof thelearnedcounsel for the appellant is that the applicantwasabona fide passenger with a valid journey ticket. On the other hand,thecontentionofthelearnedcounselfortherespondent is that no railway ticket was found at the[time][ of]incident.

17. In a case of Union of India (stated supra), theHon’ble Supreme Court held that, on the burden of proof,which emphasized that any person found dead or injured[on]railway premisesis presumed to be a bona fide passengerunlesstherailwayadministrationprovesotherwise.Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse.Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, on the burden of proof,which emphasized that any person found dead or injured[on]railway premisesis presumed to be a bona fide passengerunlesstherailwayadministrationprovesotherwise.Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse.

18. In viewof the foregoing discussion anduponperusing the material available on record, it is observed[that]therespondentisfailedtoestablishthatwhethertheinjured/appellantisa bonafide passenger ornot,astheburdenlies on the respondent authorities and hencetherailwayadministrationisliabletopaytheadequatecompensation.Therefore,consideringthesubmissionsmade by learned counsel for the appellant, thisCourt[is]oftheconsideredopinionthatwhilesettingasidetheimpugned judgment, inclined to allow the present appeal.perusing the material available on record, it is observed[that]therespondentisfailedtoestablishthatwhethertheinjured/appellantisa bonafide passenger ornot,astheburdenlies on the respondent authorities and hencetherailwayadministrationisliabletopaytheadequatecompensation.Therefore,consideringthesubmissionsmade by learned counsel for the appellant, thisCourt[is]oftheconsideredopinionthatwhilesettingasidetheimpugned judgment, inclined to allow the present appeal.

19. Accordingly, theCivil Miscellaneous Appealisallowed. The impugned dated 20.12.2019 passed in OA/II/u/92of2015bytheRailwayClaimsTribunal,AmaravtiBench,Guntur,isherebysetaside.TheappellantwasawardedcompensationofRs.8,00,000/-[Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with interestat6%p.a.fromthedateoffilingtheclaimapplicationtillitsrealization. The respondent. Union of India,isdirectedtopay the compensation amount within a periodof two(2)months from the date of receipt of a copyof thisorder.[On]suchdeposit, theapplicantis permittedto withdrawtheamount without furnishing any security. There shall[be]noorder as to costs.

20. Asasequel,allthependingmiscellaneousapplications shall stand closed.applications shall stand closed.

SD/- V DIWAKARDEPUTY REGISTRAR

Note: (X) The operative portion at the end of Para No.19is Amended asperCourtOrderdated27.09.2024madeini.A.No.1of2024inC.M.A.No.53 of 2020.

SD/-V DIWAKARDEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTiPFICER

To,

1. The Railway Claims Tribunal AmaravathiBench,At Guntur,(with records if any)

2. The General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad.

3. One CC to M/s. Geetha Madhuri N S Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri J U M V Prasad, Advocate [OPUC]

5. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of AndhraPradeshat Amaravathi.

6. Three CD copies.

Trtsree

HIGH COURT

DATED:p8/12/2023

'' V#27/09/2024

AMENDED JUDGMENT + DECREE

CMA.No.53 of 2020

'^4/o'..g2 2 NOV 2024|. Cuffeni S«ctk>n^

ALLOWING THE C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

:: AMARAVATI

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 53 OF 2020

Between:

V Rama Krishna, S/o V. Satyanarayana, aged about 29 years, Occ.DocumentsWriter,D.NO.15-318-1IndiraNagarGaddaMeda,Addanki, Prakasam District.

AND

...Appellant/Applicant

Union of fridia. Rep. by its the General Manager, South Central Railway,...3 •'Secunderabad-r-■

...Respondent

Appeal Under Section 23 OF Railway Tribunal Act against Judgmentdated order dated 20.12.2019 in OA NO.II (U) NO. 92/2015[on][ the][ file][ of]the Honourable Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers inthe Suit and upon hearing arguments of Smt Geetha Madhuri N S, Advocatefor the Appellant and of Sri J U M V Prasad (Central Government Counsel)Advocate for Respondent.

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

1. That'the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby[allowed.]

2. That the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 passedin 10 OA/II/aj/92 of2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench,[Guntur,][ be][ and]2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench,[Guntur,][ be][ and]‘is hereby set aside.

3. ThattheappellantbeandisherebyawardedcompensationofRs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with[interest][ at][ 6%][ p.a.]from the date of filing the claim application till[its][ realization.]Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with[interest][ at][ 6%][ p.a.]from the date of filing the claim application till[its][ realization.]

4. That the respondent. Union of India be and is hereby[directed][ to] pay[ the]compensation amount within a period of two (2) months[from][ the][ date][ of]receipt of a copy of this order.compensation amount within a period of two (2) months[from][ the][ date][ of]receipt of a copy of this order.

5. That on suchdeposit,theapplicant be andis hereby permittedtowithdraw the amount without furnishing any security.withdraw the amount without furnishing any security.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs.

SDI- V DIWAKARDEPUTY REGISTRAR

Note: (X) The operative portion at the end of Para[No.19][ in][ the][ Judgment]is Amended as per Court Order dated 27.09.2024 madeinI.A.No.1of2024 in C.M.A.No.53 of 2020, the Decree is also amended[to][ that][ effect.]

//TRUE COPY//

SDI- V DIWAKARDEPUTY REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, At[Guntur.]

2. Three CD copies.

Trtsree

HIGH COURT

DATED;08/12/2023

27/09/2024

AMENDED DECREE

CMA.No.53 of 2020

j#^X2 2 NOV ?0?‘»SA-ivCurT*ni S*cUon£eaMTC^*Sr^

ALLOWING THE C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS