Telangana High CourtUnion Of India vs Geeta Devi , Gita Devi And 2 Others on 9 June, 2023THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI\n\n          Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.965 OF 2019\n\nORDER:This Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed underSection\n\n23of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1978 aggrieved by the\n\nJudgment dated 02.07.2019 in OA II (U) No.279 of 2016 passed\n\nby the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench,\n\nat Secunderabad, wherein the claim petition filed by the\n\napplicants claiming compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- for the\n\ndeath of F. Khetan Sing @ Khet Sing @ Khetaram @ Khetram,\n\nwho has fallen from the running train and died.2.     The brief facts of the case are that on 30.06.2016\n\nafternoon the deceased has purchased II class train journey\n\nticket bearing No. APA 08927805 from Warangal to Khammam\n\nand boarded train No. 18646 Hyderabad - Howrah East Coast\n\nExpress and informed the same to his wife.        When the train\n\nhalted at Khammam Railway Station, many passengers got\n\ndown from the train with heavy luggage and when the deceased\n\ncame to the door of the compartment to alight, train suddenly\n\nstarted moving, as such he was standing near the train to get\n\ndown from the train on the next halt.       In the meantime the\n\ndeceased slipped and fell down accidently from the running2train at KM 485/12-14, just after Khammam Railway Station\n\ni.e., in between Khammam and Pandilapalli Railway Stations.\n\nThe body of the deceased was dragged by the train, due to\n\nwhich the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the\n\nspot.   Therefore, the wife and sons of the deceased have filed\n\napplication seeking compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- against the\n\nrespondent.3.      The respondent filed written statement denying the\n\naverments and stated that there were no eyewitness to the\n\nincident.     Therefore, it cannot be stated that under what\n\ncircumstances the incident has happened and there was no\n\nintimation to guard, driver and based on the message by B.\n\nPrem Kumar, who is duty key man, that one unknown body was\n\nlying side of the down line tract in between Khammam and\n\nPandillapalli Railway Stations, FIR was registered. It is further\n\ncontended that the incident has happened beyond destination\n\nstation i.e., Khammam, as such ticket has no evidentiary value.4.      Before the Tribunal, AW1 was examined and Exs. A1 to\n\nA10 were marked on behalf of the applicants. Ex.A1 is the\n\noriginal journey train ticket, Exs.A2 to A4 are the attested\n\ncopies of FIR, Inquest and Postmortem report.      Ex.A5 is the\n\ndeath certificate of the deceased. Exs.A6 to A10 are the Aadhar3Cards, birth certificate and ration card of the applicants.   On\n\nbehalf of the respondents, none were examined.          However,\n\nEx.R1 Divisional Railway Manager's Report was marked.5.    After hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal allowed the\n\napplication in part by awarding a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.\n\nAggrieved by the said order, the respondent has preferred the\n\npresent civil miscellaneous appeal.6.    Heard both sides and perused the entire record.7.    The main contention of the learned counsel for the\n\nappellant is that the deceased has travelled beyond destination\n\nstation i.e., Khammam, as such Ex.A1 ticket has no evidentiary\n\nvalue and thereby the deceased was not a bonafide passengers\n\nfrom Khammam Railway Station to Pandilapalli Railway Station\n\nbut the Tribunal without considering the same, has awarded\n\ncompensation and hence prayed to allow the appeal by setting\n\naside the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. Per contra,\n\nlearned counsel for the respondent - applicant has argued that\n\nthere is ample evidence on record to substantiate that the\n\ndeceased Khetan Singh was a bonafide passenger of train No.\n\n18646 Hyderabad - Howrah East Coast Express and he died in4an untoward incident due to accidental fall from the said train\n\nbetween Khammam and Pandilapalli Railway Station.8.   Now the point for consideration is:"Whether    the   deceased   was   bonafide\n     passenger of Train No. 18646 Hyderabad -Howrah East Coast Express travelling from\n     Warangal to Khamma on 30.06.2016 and thereby\n     the applicants are entitled for compensation?"9.   Admittedly, the death of the deceased occurred due to\n\naccidental fall from the train No. 18646 Hyderabad - Howrah\n\nEast Coast Express, which is travelling from Warangal to\n\nKhammam on the date of the accident. The learned Tribunal on\n\nappreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to the\n\nconclusion that the train ticket was purchased by the deceased\n\nto travel from Warangal to Khammam and the deceased was\n\nsupposed to get down at Khammam Railway Station, however,\n\nthe attempt of the deceased to get down from the said train\n\ncould not be successful, as many passengers got down from the\n\nsaid train with heavy luggage and as a result the train moved.\n\nThereby the deceased could not get down from the train at\n\nKhammam Railway Station and that prompted the deceased to\n\ncontinue in the same train to the next halt. While the deceased\n\nstayed near the door of the compartment to get down the train5at the next halt, the deceased fell down from the moving train\n\naccidentally, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.10.       Now the issue to be resolved is whether the deceased can\n\nbe held to be a bonafide passenger having been travelled beyond\n\ndestination station i.e., Khammam. The learned counsel for the\n\nrespondent relied upon a decision of this Court in A. Laxmi @\n\nLaxmi @ Reddymalla Renuka and others v. Union of India1,\n\nwherein this Court by placing reliance onB. Narayana v. Union\n\nof India2, held as follows:"At the most, the passengers, who travelled\n          beyond their destination in a train, would be\n          liable to pay excess fare or charge for the over\n          travelled distance. But merely on the ground that\n          a person travelled beyond his destination in a\n          train, it cannot be held that he is not a bonafide\n          passenger without a proper pass or ticket.     The\n          mere fact that a passenger had over-travelled\n          beyond the destination does not necessarily\n          warrant a finding that he was not a bonafide\n          passenger, though such person is liable to pay\n          proper or excess fare to the Railways."1CMA No.682 of 2016 decided on 26.10.20182CMA No.20 of 2003 decided on 22.07.2010611.       Learned counsel for the respondent further relied upon an\n\nauthority in Sunitha C. and others v. Union of India3 the High\n\nCourt of Kerala at Ernakulam held as follows:"The said rule has also been relied on by\n          the High Court of Bombay in Vaishali Bhalerao v.Union of      India.   The conclusion,      which   is\n          inescapable on a reading ofSections 55,123,124,124-Aand138of the Railways Act, 1989\n          and the provisions of the manual is that an\n          unintentional overriding of the journey for which a\n          ticket is purchased is an accident which can be\n          corrected by payment of fine or purchase of a\n          ticket back to the original destination."12.       In view of the principle laid down in the above citations, it\n\nis evident that merely because the passenger over-travelled the\n\ndestination, it cannot be said that the said passenger is not a\n\nbonafide passenger.          Thereby, the applicants being the legal\n\nrepresentatives of deceased, are entitled for compensation.13.       In view of the above discussion, learned counsel for the\n\nappellant failed to substantiate any of the grounds to succeed in\n\nthe present appeal and thereby this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal\n\nis liable to be dismissed.32017 ACJ 878714.   During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the\n\nrespondents has prayed to pass appropriate direction, so that\n\nthe first applicant can withdraw entire share awarded by the\n\nTribunal to her. Since the time frame fixed by the learned\n\nTribunal to deposit the share of the first applicant No.1 in a\n\nnationalized bank for a period of two years has already been\n\nlapsed, this Court is inclined to permit the first applicant i.e.,\n\nfirst respondent herein to withdraw entire compensation\n\namount awarded to her.15.   Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.\n\nThere is no order as to costs.Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand\n\nclosed.__________________________\n                                     JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI\n09.06.2023\nAS8THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI\n\n\n\n\n         Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.965 OF 2019\n\n\n\n\n                    Dated: 09.06.2023\n\n\n\n\nAS