IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.18-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.992 OF 2003 Between: Sahini Sudharani and another. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Eastern Railways, Calcutta. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.992 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) assailing order, dated 20-11-2002 passed in O.A.A. No.303 of 1999 filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one S. Sarveswara Rao (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) dismissing the claim. 2. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in the O.A.A. No.303 of 1999. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The applicants happened to be the wife and son of the deceased. On 28-10-1999, the deceased with a view to go to Palakonda near Srikakulam Road railway station, went to Kharagpur railway station and purchased second class general ticket bearing No.07931368 to travel from Kharagpur to Srikakulam road railway station and due to cancellation of some trains on account of heavy rains and cyclone on that day and on the advise of railway authorities to travel in available trains to reach destinations irrespective of whether super fast trains were available or ordinary trains were available, he boarded in train No.6803 Howrah – Tiruchurapalli super fast express and during the journey fell down from the train in motion in the station yard of Palasa railway station due to sudden jerks of the train and he was dragged up to 90 sleepers and died on the spot instantaneously on 29-10-1999 at 07-10 a.m. Further, as he was a bona fide passenger of the train, the applicants who happened to be his wife and son and dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and claiming that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and he fell down from the train due to his negligence which would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries which is an exemption under section 124-A of the Railways Act and ultimately the respondent pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Sahini Sarveswara Rao? 2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.6803 Howrah Tiruchurapalli Express, travelling from Kharagpur to Srikakulam road on 28- 10-1999? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Palasa railway station yard? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined herself as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8 which happened to be the Ticket, relevant copies of F.I.R., Inquest report and postmortem report and death certificate, legal heir certificate, extract of station diary and original diary. Further, on behalf of the respondent, M. Jagga Rao, Station Superintendent at Palasa railway station was examined as RW.1 and D.D. Bagde, the Guard of the train No.6803, was examined as RW.2 and got marked extract of the guard’s memo book as Ex.R-1. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and the remaining issues in favour of the respondent and against the applicants and dismissed the claim of the applicants. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. There is no dispute about the findings given under the issue No.1, whereas there is dispute with regards to the findings given under the other issues. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether sufficient evidence was placed to the effect that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train or the respondent proved that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train placing necessary evidence? 2) Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether its order is sustainable or not? 10. Point No.1: It is the testimony of AW.1 in connection with their claim that she went to the house of her parents two weeks prior to the death of her husband and her husband two days prior to 28-10-1999 informed her by telephone that she was starting from Kharagpur to go to Palakonda by train on 28-10-1999. It is also her evidence that her husband went to the railway station at Kharagpur and purchased a ticket bearing No.07931368 and waited for train, but due to heavy rains and cyclone on that day some trains were cancelled and few trains were running late and concerned railway staff advised passengers to catch any train available to reach their destinations irrespective of whether it happened to be a super fast train or express train and thereafter her husband boarded in general compartment of train No.6803, Howrah – Tiruchurapalli express holding a valid journey ticket and during travel he slipped and fell down accidentally from the train which was in motion at Palasa railway station due to the jerks of the train and died on the spot at 07-10 hours on 29-10-1999 and later she received necessary information which is only hearsay and hence can not be taken into consideration, there should be some direct evidence or circumstantial evidence to prove that. 11. Ex.A-2 which is copy of F.I.R. discloses that on a message given by Station Superintendent , Palasa railway station, the case was registered by the Government Railway Police at 09-00 a.m. on 29-10- 1999 whereas the alleged incident is said to have been taken place on the same day at 07-15 a.m. Ex.A-2 which is a copy of relevant inquest report provides that on the same day at 12-00 noon inquest over the dead body was conducted in the presence of mediators and then it was opined that the deceased fell down from train No.6803 and then the train ran over him and therefore received serious injuries and died on the spot and it also provides that ticket bearing No.07931368 dated 28-10-1999 was seized from the dead body of the deceased. Further as per Ex.A-4 copy of post mortem examination report, the same examination was conducted from 06-00 p.m. on 29-10-1999 and then it was opined that the death appeared to have occurred between 12 to 24 hours prior to that examination which agree with the claim of the applicants about the time of death of the deceased. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that when he was not holding a valid ticket to travel by the super fast train to reach his destination and there was no stoppage of the train at Palasa, he can not be called as a bona fide passenger within the ambit of Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act and the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the same. It is also contended that no co-passenger was examined to prove the travel. 13. It is very pertinent to note here that the information about the incident was given by the Station Superintendent to the G.R.P. without any delay and also the inquest over the dead body was conducted without any delay and then the ticket was seized from the dead body as per Exs.A-2 and A-3. The contents of the F.I.R. and the inquest report are to be taken into consideration unless the same is rebutted. The Railway claims cases are to be disposed of in a summary manner. Objective findings in the inquest report certainly play an important role to ascertain that the deceased traveled by the train holding a valid ticket. If there was lot of delay in giving necessary information about the accident to the G.R.P. and in conducting the inquest over the dead body, the same may be viewed with suspicion. Further, no witness on behalf of the respondent was examined to disprove those circumstances. 14. Indeed, learned standing counsel for the respondent mainly questions the plea that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train on the ground that there is absolutely no basis to say that due to some unfavourable climatic conditions several trains in the said route were cancelled and railway authorities advised the passengers to travel by any available train to reach their destinations under those circumstances and therefore the deceased aboarded the train in question. 15. On the other hand it is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the circumstances of the case amply prove that the deceased traveled a long distance by train though he was holding only a valid ticket to travel by an ordinary train and unless there were compelling reasons, he would not have done so which proves that he did so with a bona fide intention and under those circumstances the reasons given by the applicants which compelled him to travel by the train in question should be accepted to be true and correct and hence he should be treated as a bona fide passenger of the train in support of which he has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in K. Vidya Kumari and others V. Union of India, South Central Railway, Secunderabad[1]. 16. It is the testimony of AW.2 Station Manager of Srikakulam road railway station, that the train bearing No.6803 happened to be a super fast train and there was no stoppage of the train at Srikakulam road railway station and the train went through the station at 08-16 hours on 29-10-1999 which was entered in the station diary. 17. RW.1 M. Jagga Rao who was on duty as Station Superintendent at Palasa railway station deposed that the train passed through the railway station at 17-13 hours and after the train crossed, some persons approached him and informed him that a dead body was lying on the track near T.T.E’s room and he sent a necessary message to the G.R.P. Police accordingly. 18. RWs.1 and 2 corroborated the evidence of AW.2 and AW.1 in that context. It is also the evidence of RW.1 that he did not receive any complaint of fall of any person from the train. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of AW.2 and RWs. 1 and 2 and accordingly it is accepted be true and correct. 19. There is no direct evidence in fact to say that the deceased traveled by the same train and fell down before receiving the injuries which is not fatal if there is good evidence otherwise to prove the claim of the applicants. Further, when the evidence adduced provides that the dead body was traced on the track soon after the train crossed the railway station, it is to be presumed that he fell down from the same train only. Further, in order to hold that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train it must be shown that he traveled by the train having knowledge that he got no valid ticket to travel by the train to reach his destination. If he traveled by the train to cover such a long distance holding the railway ticket it also must be inferred that the railway authorities checked his ticket and satisfied with the same. 20. The Act being a beneficial piece of legislation intended for the benefit of such railway accident victims when there is ambiguity with regards to an accident that which is favourable to such victim is to betaken into consideration. In other words, when it is not easy to skull out what was the exact intention of the deceased in travelling by the super fast train, it is to be drawn that he did so due to a genuine reason. 21. Further, in the decision cited supra, it was observed : “The Tribunal rejected the claim of the claimants only on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It is also not understood as to how the deceased could not be a bona fide passenger. Admittedly the deceased was having a valid railway ticket, might be valid in the train from Guntur to Secunderabad, and that the said train had not reached the platform to take the passengers from Guntur to Secunderabad. But that would not make any difference in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the explanation contained in Section 124-A of the Railways Act, clearly contemplates that a person who purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any day or possesses a valid platform ticket, and if he becomes a victim of an untoward incident, he is entitled for compensation. The section does not further clarify that the passenger must possess the valid ticket of the same train from which he had an accident fall. The fact that even a platform ticket holder is also entitled for compensation, itself, is a clear indication that any person who is having a valid railway ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date, and becomes a victim of an untoward incident, he is entitled for compensation. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is completely misconceived and not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the said finding of the Tribunal is set-aside”. Therefore, it is enough if the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel by a train intended and for the reason that he was compelled to travel by a different train no adverse inference should be drawn. Therefore, the circumstances enumerated amply prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train. Accordingly this point is answered. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal awarding the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of decree and at 9% p.a. thereafter till the date of realization apportioning Rs.3,00,000/- to the first applicant and Rs.1,00,000/- to the second applicant in view of their relationships with the deceased and their ages. There shall be no order as to costs. It is represented by learned counsel for the respondent that interest to be granted at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of decree may be ordered to be retained in view of a Review filed by the Railways before the Supreme Court. Accordingly the interest payable from the date of petition till the date of decree is ordered to be retained subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Review petition filed by the railways. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 18-03-2011. B/o.Dsh. [1] 2003 (1) ALT 65