HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 709 OF 2006 DATED 22nd December, 2011 BETWEEN B.Lingamma and ors …Appellants And Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 709 OF 2006 ORDER: This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is filed against the Nil Award dated 26-04-2006 passed in OAA No. 91 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, at Secunderabad. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act seeking payment of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account death of one B. Balaswamy, the husband of the first claimant/appellant in the alleged untoward incident of accidental fall from the train No. 535 on 20.2.2002 at Devarakadra Railway Station. The facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the claim petition are that the said B.Balaswamy with a view to go to his village near Devarakadra on 20.2.2002 started his journey by boarding Train No. 535-passenger train at Kachiguda by purchasing a valid ticket bearing No. 00073997 upto Devarakadra and while alighting the train at Devarakadra, he accidentally fell down from the train and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to the same at the spot of the accident. The respondent-Railways filed a counter stating that the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger as he has travelled beyond the destination point; that as the deceased tried to jump out of the moving train, such act of the deceased fell under ‘self inflected injury’ and ‘criminal act’ which formed exception to Section 124-A of the Railways Act and thus the respondent-Railways is not liable to pay any compensation. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the appellants are dependants of the deceased B. Balaswamy? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No. 535 passenger travelling from Kacheguda to Devarakadra on 20.2.2002? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Devarakadra Railway Station? 4. To what relief ? To prove the claim of the claimants/appellants, they examined A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondent-Railways, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R.1 was got marked. The Tribunal after due consideration of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, recorded a finding that since the body of the deceased was found away from Devarakadra Railway Station towards Koukuntla, he cannot be held to be a bona fide passenger beyond Devarakadra Railway Station in as much as he had travelled beyond the destination point. The Tribunal further held that the claimants have not made any efforts to prove the identity of the dead body as that of the deceased only. Holding so, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the claimants failed to prove that the death of the deceased was due to the alleged untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Act and therefore they were not entitled to any compensation. Hence, this appeal. Heard both sides. Perused the case file. In this appeal, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that Tribunal did not consider Ex.A.2—inquest report prepared by the respondent-Railway in the proper perspective. He contended that the deceased was holding a valid ticket and died as a result of untoward incident. He pointed out that though in the death report prepared by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Government Railway Police Station, Mahaboobnagar, it was clearly stated that the dead body lying at Km.No.137/3-4 in between Kaukuntla- Devarakadra Railway Stations was of the deceased in the case on hand, however, the Tribunal erroneously reached a finding that the applicants failed to prove the identity of the dead body of the deceased. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Railways submitted that in as much as the deceased had travelled beyond the destination point, he cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. He contended that the accident seems to have occurred on account of the deceased having jumped from the moving train and therefore such act of the deceased fell under the ‘self inflicted injury’ and ‘criminal act’ and the same forms exception to Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The learned Standing Counsel for the Railways submitted that the claimants have not made any effort to prove the identity of the dead body as that of the deceased; that post-mortem was conducted three days after the alleged incident; and Ex.A.3-Post-Mortem shows that post-mortem was conducted on an unknown body and even in the inquest which was conducted after gap of fourteen hours on 21.2.2002, the identity of the deceased was not known. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration is whether the dead body found in the case on hand is that of the deceased or not. It is not in dispute that the dead body of the passenger was found on the metal stones of the railway track at Home Signal, half a kilometer away from the Devarakadra railway station. A valid ticket was also recovered from the dead body of the passenger. To find out the details of the dead body so found on the railway tracks, the FIR can be looked into only for the purpose of death that occurred and the inquest report can be looked into as to the particulars of the person who died and the cause of death being suicidal or accidental. This is not a case of death occurring due to self-inflicting injury as can be seen from the FIR and inquest report. Therein, the name of the dead body was not mentioned. However, in the death report issued by the Government Railway Police Station, Mahaboobnagar, the name of the dead body was mentioned as ‘Balaswamy’. In the said report, it was mentioned that the cause of death was due to fall down from a running train and thereby suffered multiple injuries which led to shock and death . In the said report, it was mentioned that the place of death was at Km.No.137/3-4 in between Kaukuntla-Devarakadra Railway Station and the said information was given by one Siddaiah, the Station Master-I, South Central Railways, Mahaboobnagar. It is to be noted that the FIR, Inquest report and death report were issued by the very same officer, i.e. Sub-Inspector of Police, Govt. Railway Police Station, Mahaboobnagar. The above particulars clinchingly establish that the dead body that was traced on the Railway tracks was that of the Balaswamy, the husband of the first claimant. If the respondent-Railways disputes that the dead body found at Home signal was not of the deceased, nothing prevented them to prove the same by leading necessary evidence to that effect. But it failed to do so for the reasons best known to it. A perusal of the order under appeal clearly manifests that, no evidence was adduced to discharge their burden. Needless to point out that when an allegation/averment is made against a person, the burden lies on the person who made such allegation to discharge the burden of proof in the first instance. In the case on hand, no evidence was adduced to show that the dead body found at Home signal was not of the deceased in the case on hand. In the absence of such evidence on the part of the respondent-Railway, there is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that the dead body is not that of the deceased ‘Balawamy’. R.W.1 deposed that he saw the dead body approximately half a kilometer away from Devarakadra railway station towards Koukuntla by the side of the railway track at Km.No.135/3-4 and reiterated the same in the cross-examination. Though there is discrepancy in the material evidence that the dead body was found at Km NO.135/13-14 and not at Km. No.135/3-4, however, it is not in dispute that the dead body of the deceased found at Home signal is half a kilometer away from the Devarakadra Railway Station. It is also not in dispute that the dead body of the deceased was found on the metal stones at Home signal with journey ticket No.00073997 dt. 20.02.2002 from Kacheguda to Devarakadra. It is the stand of the respondent-Railways that as the deceased travelled beyond the destination point, he cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. Even the Tribunal also observed that since the journey ticket of the deceased was from Kacheguda to Devarakada and his dead body was found away from Devarakadra railway station, he cannot be held to be a bona fide passenger beyond Devarkadra Railway Station. It appears that though the deceased was supposed to travel up to Devarakadra, it appears that, when the train just started to lave the platform at Devarakadra, he realized the fact that he had reached the destination and anxiously tried to get down the train and in that process, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train. Added to it, it is also not in dispute that the dead body of the deceased was found half a kilomteter from the Devarakadra Railway Station. The fact that the dead body was noticed and recovered by the Railway staff near railway track prima facie discloses that the death of the deceased occurred on account of an accident. A valid journey ticket was also found in possession of the dead body of the deceased. Merely because, the deceased did not alight at his destination point and his dead body was found half a kilometer beyond the destination point, it cannot be said that he was not a bona fide passenger. Since the provision for compensation in the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and no narrow and technical approach is warranted. The nature of incidents that may result in injuries or death of bona fide passengers involving in a train is elaborately dealt with in Section 123 of the Railways Act. Further the fact that the dead body was found at a place of half a kilomter away from the Devarakadra Railway station, which was seen by R.W.2-Key man and that a valid ticket was recovered form his body clearly disclosed that the death occurred only on account of accidental fall from the train. As such, it cannot be said that there was any attempt on the part of the deceased to inflict injury himself. It is a case where death is admitted. When the Railways alleged that the deceased himself inflicted injury, it is for it to prove the negligence and carelessness of the deceased. As the burden on the part of the Railways remained undischarged, there is no other option except to accept the case of the claimants. This Court in a similar circumstances in N.Buchilingam Vs. Union of India {2004(6) ALD 302} held as under: “The fact that the dead body was noticed and recovered by the Railway staff near railway track prima facie discloses that the death of the deceased occurred on account of an accident. The nature of incidents that may result in injuries or death of bona fide passengers, involving a train is elaborately dealt with in section 123 of the Railways Act. The term 'accidental fall' referred to in clause (c)thereof, does not require that the accident shall be of a particular nature. Once an individual receives injuries or succumbs to them, the liability of the railways arised. It is saved only under certain circumstances referred under Section 124-A of the Act. As long as the circumstances stated therein are not pleaded or proved, the liability against the respondent to pay compensation subsists. Being the provisions intended for the welfare of the victims of accident or their dependants, Sections 123 and 124-A need to be given a liberal construction. There are no factors to indicate that there was any attempt on the part of the appellants to present a fictitious claim. The fact that the dead body was found at a place hundreds of kilometers away from their residence, the deceased was seen of by P. W. 2 at the railway Station and that tickets were recovered from his body, clearly disclose that the death occurred only on account of accidental fall from the train. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to be paid the compensation as provided for under the relevant provisions. The compensation provided for such instances under the relevant provisions as they stand now is rs. 4,00,000/ -.” From the above, it is clear that an untoward incident takes in its fold several contingencies and unless it is pleaded and proved that the victim concerned had an intention to sustain self injury on his own accord, the exception carved out in Section 124-A of the Act cannot be applied as was held in the case of Union of India Vs. V.M. Ranganadham { II 2007 ACC 666}. As stated supra, although the respondent-Railway pleaded that the deceased was died on his own accord, it has not adduced any evidence to prove the same so as to bring under the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Further the Tribunal without appreciating the evidence on record properly, erroneously held that the claimants have not been able to explain satisfactorily the time gap between the actual fall and the scheduled arrival of the train at Devarakadra Railway Station. It is to be seen from record that on 20.2.2002 the 535- Passenger train arrived the Devarakadra railway station at 6.30 p.m. As per the FIR, the Key man, one David of gang No.24 filed a written memo as regards the dead body of the unknown person at Home signal at about 10.00 A.M. on 21.2.2002. The post-mortem was conducted on the dead body on 22.20.2002 at 5.00 PM and the Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem opined that the approximate time of death was 48 to 60 hours and the death was due to multiple injuries leading to shock and death. If the approximate time of death of the deceased was taken into account, it correctly connects the actual fall of the deceased from the train. For the foregoing discussion, the evidence on record overwhelmingly proves the fact that the dead body found at Home Signal on 21.2.2002 was that of the deceased, the husband of the first claimant; that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; and that the death of the deceased was due to alleged untoward incident of accidental fall from the train No. 535- passenger on 20.2.2002. That being so, the contention of the respondent-Railway that the dead body found at Home signal on the relevant point of time was not of the deceased; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; and that death was due to self inflecting injury is misconceived. The Tribunal failed to consider all the above aspects in the proper perspective and thereby erroneously dismissed the application filed by the claimants by its Award dated 26.4.2006 which is liable to be set aside for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. In the light of the above, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as per the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Railways Act . In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. As a sequel thereto, the respondent-Railway is directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) to the claimants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 22nd December, 2011. Msnro