1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 05-03-2019 in OA II (U) No.171 of 2015 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, the
appellants who are applicants in the above referred application filed the present appeal.
2. As could be seen from the record, the appellants herein are parents of one Vamshikrishna, who herein after will be referred as deceased was a
student and a bachelor. On 28-04-2015, the deceased with a view to attend a function of his friend at Bellampally, he left his house at Peddapally at
11.a.m., and reached railway station. He has purchased journey ticket from Peddapally to Bellampally and boarded a train but accidentally fell down
from the running train and died on the spot. In the evening hours, when the appellant No.2 made an attempt to contact the deceased, she could not
reach him. Thereafter, she was informed about the incident met by her son and died due to injuries. Thereby, the parents rushed to Mancherial where
they found the dead body of their son. Therefore, they filed the above referred application before the Railway Claims Tribunal for compensation. The
application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the post-mortem report revealed the presence of alcohol in the abdomen of the
deceased. There was no eye-witness to the alleged incident. Even as per the General Diary entry and sketch prepared at the scene of accident it
would suggest that the dead body was found in between the track. Therefore, they claimed that they are not liable to pay any compensation.
3. The Tribunal framed four (4) issues. During the enquiry, the appellant No.2, who is mother of the deceased filed her evidence affidavit. She was
examined as AW.1. They have marked Exs.A1 to A9. No body was examined by the respondent but Divisional Railway Manager’s report was
marked as Ex.R1. The Railway Claims Tribunal did not accept the contention of the appellants herein and placing reliance on the PME report, came
to a conclusion that the deceased did not suffer any untoward incident within definition under Section 123(c)(2) of Railways act, 1989, thereby,
dismissed the application.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased, who purchased a valid journey ticket and who boarded Singareni passenger,
accidentally fell down from train, thereby, it is an untoward incident and thereby the appellants are entitled to compensation. The learned counsel has
further stated that though the appellants have examined AW.1 and marked documents in support of their claim and in spite of the fact that respondent
did not adduce any evidence, the Tribunal basing on Ex.R1 dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein. The learned counsel has submitted
that the findings of the Tribunal on the basis of post-mortem report are incorrect. Even as per the post-mortem report, Final report from the Forensic
Science Laboratory was not received. The Medical Officer gave a clear finding that the deceased died due to severe injuries received from the train
accident. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
5. In the grounds of appeal, the appellants have claimed even though the application was filed for Rs.4,00,000/-, in view of the subsequent Gazette
issued by the Union of Government, they are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Thereby, they prayed for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-
with interest from the date of accident.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted the evidence placed by the appellants and report marked as Ex.R1 clearly shows that there
was alcohol in the abdomen of the deceased thereby, even if it is believed that the deceased fell down from the train it was due to influence of alcohol
but was not due to untoward incident. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to any compensation, and therefore sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Now the points for consideration are :
1. Whether the findings of the Tribunal are incorrect? If so, whether they are liable to be set aside?
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- as prayed for?
8. The learned counsel for the appellants while relying on a Judgment between Union of India Vs. Amaravati Devi AIR (DEL) 2004 0 218, and
submitted that even if liquid contents of the stomach smelt alcohol, that itself is not sufficient to prove that the deceased when he had fallen from the
train was intoxicated thereby, the appellants are entitled to compensation. He has also relied on another Judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.78 of
2016 wherein, this Court opined that when there is no breath analysis test to find percentage of the alcohol in the blood of the appellant, it is difficult to
constitute that the appellant was preliminarily negligent and he himself responsible for fall from the subject train.
9. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. The journey of deceased in Singareni Passenger from Peddapally to Bellampally on
above referred date is also not in dispute. The respondent did not deny the contention of appellants that their son boarded the train, having purchased a
valid ticket. The evidence of AW.1 and documents marked as Exs.A1 to A9 which includes inquest, PME report etc., categorically shows that the
deceased, who traveled in the above referred train died and his dead body was found on the Railway track with multiple injuries over his body. The
Tribunal below placed reliance on the post-mortem report, but the Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem was not examined by the respondent.
It is true, there is a mention in the PME report to the effect that stomach contains alcohol smell. As per the opinion as to the cause of death by the
Civil Asst. Surgeon, it is stated that the deceased died due to multiple injuries and report from Forensic Science Laboratory was awaited. Therefore,
the respondent did not examine any qualified person to prove that there was alcohol in the blood of the deceased. No evidence is forthcoming. With
regard to the age, percentage of the alcohol in the blood of the deceased, most importantly there is no evidence before the Court to believe that the
deceased was under the influence of alcohol/he was intoxicated at the time of accident.
10. In the above referred Judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi made an observation that though the stomach contents gave alcohol smell
that itself not sufficient to prove that the deceased at the time of fall from the train was intoxicated. In another Judgment relied on by the appellant,
this Court made an observation that in the absence of breath analyser test and in the absence of evidence of percentage of alcohol in the blood of the
deceased, it is difficult to constitute that the appellant therein was under the influence of liquor.
11. In the case on hand except the sentence in the post-mortem report to the effect that the contents of the stomach gave alcohol smell, no scientific
evidence is placed to believe that the deceased consumed alcohol and he was under the influence of liquor when he fell down from the train. There is
no evidence as to the percentage of the liquor in the blood of the deceased. For all these reasons, it cannot be held that the deceased fell from the
running train due to the influence of liquor. Therefore, the death of the deceased can be considered as an untoward incident. There is evidence before
the Court to believe that the deceased purchased a ticket thereby, he is a bonafide passenger and he died in the untoward incident. Therefore, the
appellants are entitled to compensation.
12. However, this Court is not convinced with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that they are entitled to enhanced compensation.
The accident occurred on 28-04-2015. The Gazette came into effect on 22-12-2016. The appellants could not produce any material to show that the
Gazette Notification was issued with retrospective effect, therefore, they cannot claim enhanced compensation. But they are entitled to a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident.
13. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded with interest @ 9% on the compensation amount from the date of
accident till the amount is realized.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.
No Costs.
