*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + C.M.A.No.2598 of 2002 %29-04-2011 # Pulipaka Varalakshmi ..appellant And $ The Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad ..Respondent !Counsel for the appellant: Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar ^Counsel for respondents : Sri B.H.R. Chowdary < Gist: > Head Note: Citations: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2598 of 2002 JUDGMENT: Srimannarayana, the husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 to 4 was working as Office Superintendent in the office of the Assistant Engineer, South Central Railway, Guntur. He was issued a privilege pass, that was valid from 10-07-2000 to 09-11-2000. On 10-10-2000 he was travelling by train No.352 – passenger, from Tenali to Guntur, but has accidentally fallen between Tenali and Angalakuduru. The Guard and Driver of the train stopped and the injured was taken to the Guntur General Hospital, where he was declared dead. The appellants filed OA.A.No.241 of 2000 in the Secunderabad Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) for compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. According to them, the deceased died on account of accidental fall from the train and that they are entitled to be paid compensation, under the provisions of the Railways Act (for short ‘the Act’). The respondent filed a written-statement, opposing the claim. The fact that the deceased died while travelling in the train, was not disputed. However, it was pleaded that he was not travelling on a railway pass, and thereby he cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. Through its order dated 05-04-2002, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal. Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that once it was proved that the deceased held a valid privilege pass, and has fallen from the train, there ought not to have been any hesitation for the Tribunal to award compensation. He submits that a hyper-technical view was adopted and the compensation was refused to the appellants. Sri B.H.R. Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though a privilege pass was issued to the deceased, it was required to be used subject to certain conditions and the entries or markings on the pass did not justify the use thereof. This is one of the rare cases, where the person, who fell from the train, and died, is an employee of the railways itself. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the Tribunal framed three issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Pulipaka Srimannarayana ? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.352 Tenali-Guntur passenger travelling from Tenali-Guntur on pass, on 10-10-2000. 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Tenali and Angalakuduru Railway Stations? The appellants adduced oral and documentary evidence, which included F.I.R., inquest report, postmortem report, copy of the privilege pass. On their part, the respondent has filed the original of the pass. The Tribunal answered the first issue in favour of the appellants. Issue No.3 was also answered in favour of the appellants, holding that the death of the deceased occurred due to fall from the train, and it is to be treated as an untoward incident. However, on issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Therefore, it needs to be seen, as to whether the said finding is correct. It is a matter of record that the deceased was issued a privilege pass, valid from 10-07-2000 to 09-11-2000. On the basis of that pass, he was entitled to travel from Hyderabad to Kanya Kumari, via, Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Renigunta, Trichur and Trivendrum. The very fact that it is kept valid for three months discloses that it was not with reference to a particular journey. Obviously, on account of his duties, he was required to travel to various places in that route, and a pass of that nature was issued. The accident occurred, almost in the middle of the period of the validity of the pass. The respondent raised an objection stating that the deceased did not make any endorsements on the rear of the pass indicating that he travelled from Hyderabad to Kanyakumari and that the travel from Tenali to Guntur was not valid, since it could have occurred only in the return journey. This is too far-fetched an interpretation, on the nature of use of the pass. It is a matter of record that the deceased was employed in the office at Guntur and his travel from that place was a routine trip, either from his residence, or a place, which he had to visit as part of his duty. Further, no one connected with the issuance of pass was examined, nor any Rules or guidelines that have bearing upon the use of the pass were made part of record. The Tribunal was not at all justified in treating the deceased as not a bona fide passenger. The finding recorded by it cannot be sustained. At any rate, the benefit of doubt, if any, ought to have been given to the appellants, to avail the benefit of social security measure. One aspect, that becomes relevant is that Section 128 of the Act, though permits the victim of a railway accident, or his dependants to reap the benefits under Sections 124 and 124-A, on the one hand, and the other beneficial legislation, such as Workmen’s Compensation Act, on the other hand, it prohibits more than one claim for the same accident. In case, the appellants were extended any benefit, on account of the death of the deceased in the accident, over and above other death/retirement benefits, they cannot claim the compensation under Sections 124 and 124-A of the Act. Hence, the C.M.A is allowed, and the order under O.A.A is set aside. It is held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. However, since the nature of use of the pass was in doubt, the appellants shall be entitled to half of the compensation, namely, Rs.2 lakhs (two lakhs). This shall be subject to the condition that, in case they were extended any benefit on account of the death of the deceased in the accident, over and above the death/retirement benefits, they shall not be entitled to be paid the compensation, indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29-04-2011. Note: LR copy to be marked. (B/O) KO