S. Narayan Reddy vs Union Of India

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J

The appellant in the present appeal is challenging the order dated 03.10.2019 passed in O.A. 251 of 2014 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 03.06.2014, the deceased was traveling from Berhampur to Rambha by Train No. 58418, Gunupur–Puri Passenger, in a fully crowded general compartment.

(ii) After passing Chhatrapur Railway Station, the deceased proceeded towards the gate to ascertain the station being passed. At that moment, the train experienced a sudden jerk, causing the deceased to accidentally fall from the moving train between Ganjam and Huma Railway Stations at K.M. 566/40. The injuries sustained were grievous, and the deceased succumbed to the same on the spot. The Railway Police seized the body and conducted an inquest, registering Crime No. 471/2014 on 04.06.2014.

(iii) The body was sent for post-mortem at MKCG Medical College Hospital, Berhampur. The post-mortem report concluded that the injuries were ante-mortem and consistent with being run over by a train.

(iv) Upon investigation, the police submitted a final report attributing the death to an accidental fall from the moving train, with no suspicion of foul play.

(v) The Appellants subsequently filed Original Application No. 251/2014 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(vi) The Tribunal, by its order dated 03.10.2019, dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that there was no proof of travel on the date in question.

(vii) Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The appellant submitted that the impugned judgment dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside.

(ii) The appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was traveling in an overcrowded train, which experienced severe jerks at frequent intervals, and as a result, the deceased accidentally fell from the moving train, constituting an untoward incident for which the Appellants are entitled to compensation.

(iii) The appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal ignored the Final Report of the police, which clearly declares that the cause of death of the deceased was an accidental fall from the running train during the journey from Berhampur to Rambha by Train No. 58418, Gunupur–Puri Passenger on 03.06.2014.

(iv) The appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the examination-in-chief of S. Narayan Reddy, who deposed that while her mother was traveling from Berhampur to Rambha on the said train, the train was fully crowded. After passing Chhatrapur Railway Station, the deceased approached the gate to ascertain the station being passed. At that moment, the train jerked severely, causing the deceased to fall between Ganjam and Huma Railway Stations at K.M. 566/40, sustaining grievous injuries and succumbing on the spot.

(v) While passing the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal failed to consider that, according to the examination-in-chief of S. Narasinghulu Dora, on 03.06.2014, he purchased a ticket for the deceased in the Gunupur–Puri Passenger from Berhampur Railway Station to Gunupur Railway Station, and also arranged a seat for the deceased, duly informing the Appellant of her journey.

(vi) The appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the final police report clearly indicates that the injuries sustained by the deceased are consistent with an accidental fall from the moving train, establishing that the death resulted from a railway accident.

(vii) The appellant submitted that it is clear from the evidence that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and therefore entitled to compensation.

(viii) The appellant further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to properly consider the evidence and documents on record, which clearly establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; on this basis, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The judgment dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar is just and proper.

(ii) The appellants have not proved any negligence on the part of the respondent that caused the death of the deceased on 03.06.2014.

(iii) Admittedly, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and no ticket was recovered from her. The appellants have not produced any eyewitnesses or documents essential to establish their case.

(iv) There is no illegality or error committed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar while passing the impugned judgment.

(v) The deceased fell while boarding the running train due to her own negligence. Accordingly, no untoward incident as defined under the Railway Act occurred, and the appellants are not entitled to compensation.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR

The Tribunal heard learned counsel for the parties and framed the following issues for determination:

a. Whether the death of the deceased was due to an accidental fall as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

b. Whether the deceased was traveling as a bona fide passenger at the time of the alleged untoward incident?

c. Whether the respondent railway administration is protected u/s 124-A of the Railways Act and is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants?

d. Whether the applicant is the dependent of the deceased to receive compensation as claimed.

e. To what relief the applicant is entitled to?

On consideration of the pleadings, documents, inquest report, and post-mortem report, the Tribunal observed that no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased, and the applicant did not provide any plausible explanation or eye witness to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the deceased could not be considered a bona fide passenger. The body of the deceased was found in two pieces at KM No. 566/40, between Ganjam and Huma Railway Stations, with one portion on the track and the other outside. The Tribunal observed that such injuries are consistent only with being run over or suicide. An accidental fall due to train jerks would not normally result in such severance.

In view of these findings, the Tribunal concluded that there was no direct evidence to indicate that the death resulted from an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.

The Tribunal therefore dismissed the claim application, finding it devoid of merit, and held that the applicant was not entitled to any compensation. The application was disposed of accordingly.

V. THE COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

The principal question arising for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that her death did not constitute an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, imposes strict liability on the Railway Administration to pay compensation to passengers or their dependents in the event of an untoward incident, subject only to the exceptions enumerated therein. These exceptions include death or injury arising from suicide, self-inflicted acts, criminal acts of the passenger, acts committed in a state of intoxication or insanity, or death from natural causes or medical treatment.

It is well-settled that under Section 124-A, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation even in the absence of fault or negligence on its part. While the absence of a journey ticket is relevant, it is not determinative of the status of a bona fide passenger. Once the appellants disclose material facts regarding the journey, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to prove that the statutory exceptions apply or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. This principle was laid down in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572. and was reiterated in Kamukayi v. Union of India (2023) 19 SCC 116.

In the present case, the appellants have placed on record sufficient material to demonstrate that the deceased was traveling on Train No. 58418, Gunupur–Puri Passenger, from Berhampur to Rambha on 03.06.2014. The appellants have produced the evidence of S. Narasinghulu Dora, who purchased a ticket for the deceased and arranged a seat, and of S. Narayan Reddy, who detailed the circumstances of the accident. The final police report also records that the injuries sustained by the deceased were consistent with an accidental fall from the moving train.

The Railway Administration, in response, has relied primarily on the non-recovery of a ticket and the nature of injuries observed on the body. The Tribunal inferred that because the body was found in two pieces, the death could have resulted only from being run over or suicide.

However, such an inference, in the absence of any direct evidence, is speculative and ignores the material placed by the appellants, including the eyewitness accounts and corroborative documentary evidence regarding the ticket and travel arrangements.

On a careful appraisal of the evidence, the Court finds that the appellants have discharged their initial burden of establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the incident occurred while she was traveling. The Railway Administration has failed to demonstrate that any of the statutory exceptions under Section 124-A are applicable. The mere absence of a ticket at the time of the accident cannot outweigh the other evidence establishing the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal’s conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that her death did not constitute an untoward incident is vitiated by an erroneous appreciation of law and facts. The findings of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

VI. CONCLUSION:

In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence, this Court is persuaded to hold that the appellant was entitled to the statutory presumption in his favor, and the Railway Administration has failed to rebut it. The impugned order dismissing the claim application is, therefore, unsustainable.

The impugned judgement/order is set aside, and the appellant is held entitled to statutory compensation of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only), together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until the date of actual realization.

The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.