C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, by the applicants in O.A.II U ERS 82/2014 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench against its order dated 5.2.2016, dismissing the above O.A.
2. The appellants filed the above OA under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- being the legal heirs of deceased Jahangir, who died in an untoward incident on 30.10.2013. According to the appellants, on 30.10.2013, when Jahangir was travelling in train with a valid ticket from Aluva to Parandode and when it reached Perumon railway bridge, he was thrown out of the train due to heavy jerk and he died. The ticket was lost in the incident. The appellants filed the claim petition on the ground that it was an untoward incident. However, as per the impugned order, the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the injuries sustained by the deceased were self inflicted. Aggrieved by the above order, they preferred this appeal raising various contentions.
3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, it is a clear case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act and as such, the Railway Claims Tribunal is not at all justified in dismissing the application.
4. On the other hand, the learned Central Government Counsel Smt.Mini Gopinath, who appeared for the Railways would argue that the finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference and therefore she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Now the point that arise for consideration is the following :-
Whether the finding of the Railway Claims Tribunal that the death of Jahangir was as a result of self inflicted injuries, is correct
6. The learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased deliberately leaned out of the door of the compartment while the train was moving and at that time his head hit against the bridge which resulted in his death, is only his imagination and unsupported by evidence. It appears that in the impugned order, the Tribunal arrived at such a finding merely on the basis of an argument advanced by the counsel for the Railway that the deceased might have put his head outside the door of the compartment and hit against the bridge and fell down and died. Such an argument is seen advanced on the ground that the incident occurred near Perumon railway bridge, in between Munroturuttu and Perinad railway stations. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased might have been sitting/standing on the door ways and leaning outside the compartment and hit against the bridge. Based on that assumption the entire blame was put on the shoulders of the deceased by concluding that it was because of self- inflicted injuries that he died.
7. In this case, the only evidence available is the oral testimony of the second appellant as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A4 on the side of the appellants. No evidence was adduced from the side of the Railways. However, the DRM's report was marked as Ext.R1. PW1 in clear terms deposed before the Tribunal that in order to return home, the deceased purchased a ticket from Aluva Railway station and while he was travelling in the train and it reached Perumon Railway bridge, the deceased, who was washing his hands near the door, was thrown out of the train due to heavy jerk, and died. It is true that PW1 has no direct knowledge about the incident.
8. Exhibit R1 DRM report is prepared after investigation by the Railway officials. In the FIR, inquest and final report relating to the incident it is stated that the deceased had accidentally fallen out from an unknown train at the western side of Peruman Railway bridge in between Munroturuttu and Perinad Railway Stations and died. The postmortem report reveals that death was due to multiple injuries sustained to head. Since during inquest conducted by the local police, no ticket was traced out, in the DRM report it is concluded that he was not a bona fide passenger. With regard to the cause of the incident, it is submitted that “there is every possibility that the deceased person fell down from the train due to his careless and adventurous act. It was relying upon the above possibility suggested in the DRM report, the Tribunal imagined that the deceased put his head out of the door of the moving train and as a result of which, it hit against the bridge resulting in his death. On the other hand, in this case, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the above conclusion of the Tribunal that death occurred due to the reason that the deceased kept his head outside the door of the moving train, which resulted in hitting his head against the bridge.
9. From the evidence of PW1, it is revealed that at about 10 pm, the deceased called her over phone and informed her that he was coming home by Parasuram Express. In Exhibit R1 also, it is stated that Ramla Beevi, wife of deceased told the investigating officer that on 30.10.2013, the deceased called her over mobile phone and told that due to strike, road service was not available and therefore, he will be returning home by train from Aluva Railway Station. In column No.1 of investigation report, it is also stated in clear terms that:
“On 30.10.2013, one male person by name, Jahangir aged 47 years, S/o. Abdul Karim, Thasni Manzil, Parandode, Kottykakam muri, Aaryanade Thiruvananthapuram Dist., Kerala, had accidentally fallen down from Train no.16649 Ex-MAQ-NCJ, Parasuram Express at the Western side of the Peruman Railway bridge in between Munroturuttu and Perinad Railway Stations and killed.”
10. From the evidence of PW1 and the above noted findings in Exhibit R1 DRM report itself, it can be safely concluded that the deceased had accidentally fallen down from train No.16649, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The law is well settled that accidental fall from a moving train carrying passengers is an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act.
11. As argued by learned counsel for the appellants, the Railways had sufficient machinery to investigate into the cause of death and they have also sufficient machinery to check the passengers and to book those travelling without valid tickets. In the instant case, the deceased started journey from Aluva Railway Station and the incident occurred only between Munroturuttu and Perinad. In the meantime, nobody has found that he was travelling without any valid ticket. Since he had fallen from a moving train and died because of the injuries sustained, absence of tickets during inquest cannot be taken as a ground to presume that he was not a bona fide passenger. The presumption is that a passenger in a moving train carrying passengers is a bona fide passenger with valid journey ticket.
12. In the decision in Union of India v. Radha Yadav [(2019) 3 SCC 410], the deceased had peeped his head out of the compartment door and his head collided with a post by the side of the railway track resulting in an accident where he lost his life. Though the claim of compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal, the Kolkata High Court held that it was a case of untoward incident. The Apex Court also confirmed the judgment of the High Court.
13. In the decision in Union of India v. V. Santhabai and Others [2011 ACJ 2536], relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, due to sudden jerk of train, passenger fell down and sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. The Railways contended that he was not a bonafide passenger as there was no recovery of ticket from the deceased. By the time the accident occurred, he had travelled all the way from Tandur to Malkhed Road. In the above circumstances, the Court held that:
“6. It is no doubt true that no ticket was recovered from the dead body of the deceased. The recovery of a ticket from the body of the deceased, who died in an untoward incident, would certainly prove beyond any doubt that he was a bona fide passenger. However, mere absence thereof does not by itself lead to a conclusion to the contrary. The fall from a moving train would result in a horrifying situation. When parts of the body are separated, it would be difficult for a ticket to be intact with the body. At the same time, the inquiry as to the bona fide nature of a passenge cannot be reduced to an empty formality. In case the ticket is not recovered from the body, the attendant circumstances can certainly be verified. If the passenger has travelled fairly long distance, an inference can certainly be drawn that had he not been a bona fide passenger, he would have been booked by the checking staff. Further it is not uncommon that if the passenger does not have the time enough to purchas a ticket before the train leaves, he may choose to straightaway board the train in contemplation of purchasing ticket from the TTE, if necessary by paying fine also Therefore, much would depend upon the facts and circumstances in a given case."
14. In the decision in Sunitha v. Union of India [2016 (3) KLT 791], in a similar instance, while the deceased was washing his hands after going to the toilet he was thrown out of the train due to a violent jerking and he sustained fatal injuries. In that case, he had ticket for the journey from Kayamkulam to Tirur. His body was found near Parappanangadi Railway Station, which comes after Tirur. Therefore, it was contended that the deceased might have jumped or detrained from the moving train. It was also contended that the injuries sustained by him were self-inflicted injury coming under Section 124-A(b) of the Railways Act. The Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 17 held that the endevour of the Tribunal should not be to deny compensation to unfortunate victims, in the following words:
“17. In the instant case, there are no eye witnesses to the incident. There is no material to hold that the deceased had any reason to jump off a moving train and to bring upon himself the fatal injuries suffered in this case. It is also not the case of the respondents that there was any attempt on the part of the deceased to commit suicide. It is also clear that an untoward incident as defined in the Railways Act had occurred in the instant case. Since Railway Claims Tribunals have been set up to consider cases of accidental death and injury in railway accidents, we are of the opinion as is fortified by the decisions of the Apex Court and the various High Courts including that of this court, that the endeavor of the Tribunals should not be to deny compensation to unfortunate victims. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the claim petition is completely unjustified.”
15. In the decision in Jayalakshmi and Others v. Union of India [2013 ACJ 1707], relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, a Division Bench of this Court held in paragraph 8 that Rules 7 to 10 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003), clearly shows that the burden is on the local police and the officers of the force to conduct an enquiry/investigation into the cause of the incident and come to appropriate conclusion. Paragraph 8 reads as under:
“Rules 7 to 10 clearly show that the burden is on the local police and the officers of the force to conduct an enquiry/investigation into the cause of the incident and come to appropriate conclusion. To us it appears that the provisions clearly reveal due recognition and acceptance of the helplessness of the claimants who may be far far away from the scene/venue of the incident and consequentially incapable of adducing very compelling evidence in support of their claim. The realistic acceptance of the plight of the victims is perfectly clear from the mechanism stipulated for enquiry/investigation under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents Rules) 2003. The burden really is not placed entirely on the shoulders of the victims or claimants. But the burden is placed on the shoulders of the Railway and its officials to conduct a proper enquiry to ascertain whether claimants are really entitled to amounts or not.”
16. In the decision in Union of India v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another [2012 (3) KHC 827 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court held that a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers is presumed to have travelled with valid ticket as the security personnel, who would and could arrest unauthorised travels.
17. Going by the dictum laid down in the above decisions, it can be seen that a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers is prima facie presumed to be a bona fide passenger with valid ticket. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary from the side of Railways. From the available evidence, it can be safely presumed that the victim had accidentally fallen from the moving train resulting in injuries and his death. Therefore, the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to get compensation provided as per the schedule of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules,1990.
18. As per the schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the compensation payable for death w.e.f. 1.1.2017 is Rs.8,00,000/-. In the instant case, the incident was on 30.10.2013 and the compensation payable then was Rs.4,00,000/-. The principles to be followed for ascertaining the quantum of compensation are given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions in Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018 (2) KHC 920] and in Union of India v. Radha Yadav [(2019) 3 SCC 410]
19. In the light of the above decisions, in this case also, the appellants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. In addition to the same, they are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the above amount from today till realization from the respondent. The respondent is directed to deposit the amount within a period of two months from today.
20. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
