AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellants are the applicants before the Tribunal. Being aggrieved of the orders of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.No.(II-U) 391 of 2007, dated 20.09.2016, they preferred this appeal.
The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Sri Mohd. Abdul Majeed, a resident of Tandur, purchased a journey ticket on 16.09.2007 to travel from Tandur to Vikarabad, boarded Train No.355/Tandur passenger from Wadi to Hyderabad and due to heavy rush, he slipped and fell down from the running train, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is also the case of the appellants that the journey ticket purchased by the deceased could not be traced, as it was lost.
The Railway Department, represented by its General Manager, contested the case and filed a detailed written statement contending that the Guard of train No.355 Down Passenger (Wadi-Hyderabad) immediately stopped the train on hearing the passengers shouting, rushed to the spot, found the deceased crushed in between the Coach and the platform, removed/dragged the body with the help of GRP and hawkers, laid him on the platform, and in their presence, the baggage and pockets were checked and noticed that the deceased was travelling without ticket, thus, confirmed him as a ticket-less passenger.
Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues :
Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased;
Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question;
Whether the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train; and
To what relief ?
The Tribunal, basing on the evidence of both sides, has come to a conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and did not suffer any untoward incident, and as such, answered Issue Nos.2 and 3 against the applicants, and accordingly opined that there is no necessity to answer issue No.4 as to the quantum of compensation and dismissed the O.A. as devoid of merits.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
On perusal of the record, it is evident that Ex.A-4 is the house-hold card produced by the applicants during the course of evidence and it discloses that the applicants are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased, and therefore, issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal is answered in favour of the applicants.
As far as issue No.3 i.e. whether the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train is concerned, the evidence, which is on record is of RW-1, who is the Guard of the train. His evidence clearly discloses that on 16.09.2007, he was posted as a Guard of Train No.355 and Ex.R-1 is the Guard’s Memo Book. His evidence further discloses that on the said day, Train No.355 (Wadi-Hyderabad) Passenger departed Wadi Station at about 04.15 hours and arrived at Tandur at about 05.56 hours. The said Train departed at Tandur at 06.08 hours and after signals were given, the train started. Then, he observed some unusual shouting of passengers and immediately stopped the train by using emergency valve (by operating BP clock) and rushed to the spot i.e. Coach No.SCCZ 97643, which is next to rear SLR and found one person aged around 65 years crushed in between the Coach and the platform. His evidence further discloses that they removed the said passenger with the help of GRP and hawkers and laid him on the platform, checked the baggage and pockets in the presence of GRP and confirmed that the said person travelled without ticket. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to the Government hospital, Tandur. In the cross-examination, it is admitted by RW-1 that he had not seen the person falling from the train, but heard people shouting and therefore, stopped the train and the incident took-place on the platform itself; he did not find any ticket on the body of the deceased and the body was crushed in between the Coach and the platform. It is also admitted by RW-1 that he issued message to the Control Room, which was recorded as Ex.R-1 and it was in his own handwriting. Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.112 of 2017 registered for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., on the complaint given by the Station Manager on duty. Ex.A-2 is the inquest report and Column No.15 of the said report discloses that the deceased died due to accidental fall from the train. Hence, it could be construed that the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train bearing No.355 Down (Wadi-Hyderabad) Passenger.
Issue No.2 framed by the Tribunal is that whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not. As per the evidence of AW-1 and RW-1, the deceased had fallen from the running train. Hence, it could be construed that he was the passenger of the train. On the other hand, it is the contention of the counsel for respondent that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger of the train as journey ticket was not found with him, and therefore, the appellants are not entitled for compensation for the death of the deceased.
Learned counsel for appellants, in support of his contentions, has relied on the judgment of this Court in Shaik Mahboob Basha & others v. Union of India 2016 ACJ 1882, wherein, it is held at para 8.6 as under :
“As rightly contended, it is undisputed that a person will not be permitted even onto the platform without a platform ticket and that a person will not be permitted to travel in a train without a valid ticket with him and that a duty is enjoined upon the officers of the Railways to regulate the entry of passengers to the platform or into the railway station and into the compartments of trains and that the Railways have sufficient mechanism and manpower to regulate the same. Therefore, it can be presumed that every person entering onto the platform holds a valid platform ticket until the contrary is proved.”
In para 9 of the aforesaid judgment, it is further held as under :
“9. POINT No.2 :
Dealing with the aspect as to whether the deceased had died in an untoward incident, viz., and accidental fall from the running train, it is necessary to first refer to the relevant provision of law.
Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as under:
“124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incident:- When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to---
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Explanation :- For the purpose of this section, 'passenger' includes –
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.”
From a reading of the above provision, it is obvious that the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. If any bona fide passenger having a ticket, as defined under clause (29) of Section 2 of the Act dies in an untoward accident, it is incumbent upon the Railways to pay the compensation to the victims without putting up any dispute, provided the death of the deceased does not fall within any of the five exceptions (a) to (e), as indicated above. Since a season pass, which authorised him to travel between Gudur and Nellore railway stations and that the accident had occurred at Tettu railway station beyond the Nellore Railway station at which railway station, there is no schedule stop for the train and simply because the deceased was standing near the door of the compartment at the time when he had fallen down from the running train, it is being sought to be stated that his said act is a negligent and criminal act and that the injuries sustained by him are self-inflicted injuries. This Court, on point no.1, had already held that the deceased is holding a valid ticket and that therefore, he is a bona fide passenger. Hence, the assumption that he might have jumped from the running train cannot be countenanced. Simply because the deceased was standing near the door of the compartment at the time when he had fallen down from the running train, it is being sought to be stated that that his said act is a negligent and criminal act. Be it noted that a criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the applicants, when once the Railways issues tickets to passengers to board trains, it is for the Railways to take steps and appropriate measures to provide accommodation in the compartments of trains to all the passengers holding valid tickets and take security measures to close the doors before the trains move from the platforms and open on arrival of the train on the platforms. The Railways having issued tickets to passengers to board trains, which are overcrowded, cannot put the lives of the citizens to risk and shirk its responsibility with regard to safety and security of the passengers and then contend that it is not liable to pay compensation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased is on account of self-inflicted injury or his own criminal act. As a result, it must be held that the falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental. Point No.2 is, accordingly, answered in favour of the appellants/ applicants.”
The learned counsel for appellants has further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi [Civil Appeal No.4945 of 2018, dt.09.05.2018], wherein, in para 17.4, it is held as under :
“We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.”
The aforesaid judgments clearly apply to the facts of the present case. Hence, it can be construed that the deceased, being a bona fide passenger of Train No.355 Down Passenger (Wadi-Hyderabad), died in the untoward incident that took-place on 16.09.2007 on the Railway platform of Tandur Railway Station.
Though the appellants/applicants have filed the O.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, as per the Schedule given by the Ministry of Railways vide Notification dated 22nd December, 2016, the Railways are liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of its passengers. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of deceased Mohd. Abdul Majeed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 20.09.2016, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.No.(II-U) 391 of 2007, is hereby set aside. The respondent shall pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Out of the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, the first appellant being the wife of the deceased, is entitled for Rs.3,00,000/-, appellant Nos.2 to 6 being the sons and appellant Nos.7 and 8 being the daughters of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.71,428/- each. All the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.