IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No 293 OF 2019

Between:

• 1. R. Venkata Ramana, S/o Late R.Balaram, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Tailor, R/o.38/12-10/3,Maharani Street, Marripalem Area Visakhapatnam Post
• 2. R.Ravi Sankar @Ra/i, S/o Venkata Ramana, Aged about 10 years, Occ. Student, R/o.38/12-10/3,Maharani Street, Marripalem Area, Post Visakhapatnam
• 3. R.Chandu, S/o R.Venkat Ramana, Aged about 08 years, Occ Student, R/o.38/12-10/3,Maharani Street, Marripalem Area, Post Visakhapatnam

...Appellants/Appellants

AND

Union India, Rep. by its General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar.

...Respondent

Appeal filed Under Section 23 of Railway Tribunal Act against Judgment dated 08-02-2019 in OA II (u) No. 302 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench at Guntur.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Ms. Geetha Madhuri N S, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K Krishna Bhushan Chowdary(Central Government Counsel), Advocate for Respondent.

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

• 1. That the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby allowed;
• 2. That the impugned judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed in OA/II/u/302 of 2013 by the tribunal, is hereby set aside; $2013$ by the tribunal, is hereby set aside;
• 3. That the appellants are hereby entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) from the respondent in equal shares:
• 4. That the respondent, Union of India, is hereby directed to deposit and amount pay the compensation amount of $Rs. 8,00,000/-$ (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited;
• 5. That on such deposit, the appellants be and are hereby permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, as per their shares in terms of the award, without furnishing any security; and
• 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

SD/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

<u>Note:</u> $(X)$ Since the operative portion in the Judgment, dated 19.12.2023 in CMA.No.293 of 2019 is amended as per the Court Order dated 27.09.2024 made in CMA.No.293 of 2019 of I.A.No.2 of 2024, the Decree is also amended to that effect.

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To.

• The Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench at Guntur.
• Three CD copies.
• Trt

vna

HIGH COURT

DATED: 19/12/2023

27/09/2024

AMENDED DECREE

CMA.No.293 of 2019

ALLOWING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

TUESDAY JHE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No 293 OF 2019

Appeal filed Under Section 23 of Railway Tribunal Act against Judgment dated 08-02-2019 in OA II (u) No. 302 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench at Guntur.

Between:

m

• 1. R. Venkata Ramana, S/o Late R.Balaram, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Tailor, R/o.38/12-10/3,Maharani Street, Marripalem Area, Post Visakhapatnam
• 2. R.Ravi Sankar @Ravi, S/o Venkata Ramana, Aged about 10 years, Occ. Student, R/o.38/12-10/3,Maharani Street, Marripalem Area, Post Visakhapatnam
• 3. R.Chandu, S/o R.Venkat Ramana, Aged about 08 years, Occ Student, R/o.38/12-10/3,Maharani Street, Marripalem Area, Post Visakhapatnam

...Appellants/Appellants

AND

Union India, Rep. by its General Manager, East Coast Railway Bhubaneswar.

...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. GEETHA MADHURI N S

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. KRISHNA BUSHAN CHOWDARY{CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

C.lVI.A.No.293 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

The Appellants herein are the applicants before both The Railway Claims Tribunal, Arnaravati Bench, Amaravati (in short 'the learned tribunal') filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A-ll(u) 302 of 2013.

2. The appellants herein are the husband and minor sons of deceased Raparthi Adilakshmi, has made a claim before the learned tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest from the respondent/ Railways on account of death of deceased in an untoward incident that occurred on 20.02.2013, while travelling by a train called Kirandal - Visakhapatnam passenger. The learned tribunal after hearing on both sides, holding that the deceased is not proved to be a bonafide passenger and the appellants have failed to prove their case and dismissed the claim application. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed.

3. Heard Ms. N.S.Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Krishna Bhushan Chowdary, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

4. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the deceased was not died due to an untoward incident. The learned tribunal without appreciated the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act and simply dismissed the claim of the appellants. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that as per inquest report also no journey ticket was found with the deceased. Therefore she cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger, which fact is also corroborated with the Divisional Railway manager report. Therefore, the learned tribunal rightly dismissed the claim made by the appellants. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed.

6. Perused the record.

7. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this matter is squarely covered by this Court order dated 29.09.2023 passed in C.M.A.No. 17 of 2020, wherein this

court following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamukayi & Ors. V. Union ^o ^f India and Ors"^, wherein it was held as follows:

"This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India and the judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India and also considered the judgement of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of Indiab and in para 29 concluded as thus-

"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 1992 SCC Online MP 96 2014 SCC Online Del 101 2011 SCC Online AP 828 (2019) 12 SCC 391 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. "

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court also discussed the same verdict cited supra in ''Union of India v. Rina Dem^" case also and passed Award. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant would

(

3

^&#x27; Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023

^{^} http://lndiankanoon.org/doc/94898543/

contend that the case law cited supra is squarely applicable to the case. Therefore the appellants are entitled the claim facts'" of this as prayed for.

9. In Rina DevFs case cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, on the burden of proof, which emphasized that any person found dead or injured on railway premises is presumed to be ^a bona fide passenger unless the railway administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse.

10. In the light of Judgment of "Union of India v. Radha Yadav3'\ wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

because death is proved due to outcome of untoward incident of the deceased being a bona fide passenger, the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded."

11. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants drawn the attention of this Court with regard to Section 123 and also (c) of the Railway Act, 1989, which deals which reproduced hereunder; 25 untoward incident".

Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989

123. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,—

' (2019)3 see 410

4

(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in section 124;

(b) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:—-

(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;

(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;

(Hi) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the decease,d passenger;

(iu) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.

1

25 [(c) "untoward incident" means— \

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

(ii) the making of .a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(Hi) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

c

12. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the material available on record and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in KamukayVs case, it is observed that the respondents are failed to establish that whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not, as the burden lies on the respondent authorities and hence the railway administration is liable to pay the adequate compensation. Therefore, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the considered opinion that while setting aside the impugned judgment, inclined to allow the present appeal.

"13. Following the decisions cited supra, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, while setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal dated 08.02.2019 passed in OA/ll/U/302 of 2013. The appellants are permitted to claim compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) from the respondent in equal shares.

/

14. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. It is made clear that the respondent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, as per their shares in terms of the award, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs".

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

SD/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

!

Note: (X) The operative portion of the Order, dated 19.12.2023 in CMA.No.293 of 2019 is amended as per the Court Order dated 27.09.2024 made in CMA.No.293 of 2019 of I.A.No.2 of 2024.

SD/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

• 1. The Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench at Guntur, (with records if any)
• One CC to M/s. Geetha Madhuri N S, Advocate [OPUC] 2.
• One CC to Sri K Krishna Bushan Chowdary (Central Government Counsel) [OPUC]. 3.
• The General Manager, Union India, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar. 4.
• The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 5.
• Three CD copies. 6.

Trt vna HIGH COURT

DATED:19/12/2023

27/09/2024

AMENDED JUDGMENT

CMA.No.293 of 2019

ALLOWING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS