SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11233

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V.SUJATHA
M SAI PRASAD DIED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
CMA 2/2023



##PAGE1##

1

2026:APHC:35552

APHC010720432022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3333]

AT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2/2023

Between:

1. M SAI PRASAD DIED, ( DIED ON 04-05-2022 )

2. M. NALINI,, W/O. M. SAI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS YEARS,

OCC HOUSEWIFE R/O. D.NO.21-11-13/C NEAR GADDE BABURAO

STREET MADHURA NAGAR VIJAYAWADA-12

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. By its General Manager, South Central

Railway, Secunderbad

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. GEETHA MADHURI N S

Counsel for the Respondent:

PASALA PONNA RAO (SC FOR CENT GOVT.)

JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO (SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL

GOVT.)

The Court made the following:

##PAGE2##

2

2026:APHC:35552

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2/2023

J U D G M E N T:

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short (CMA) has been

preferred by the Applicants/Claimants aggrieved by the Judgment in Case

No.OA/II(u) 307 of 2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi

bench, Guntur, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the Claimants.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are arrayed as they

arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellants as Claimants and Respondent as

Respondent

2. Claimants being the parents of their unmarried son – Late M.Venkat

Sai Kiran (hereinafter called as the deceased), have filed a claim petition under

Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the Respondent –

Railway Administration, seeking compensation for his death, as a result of

untoward incident that occurred on 14.09.2011.

3. The facts in nutshell are that – in the afternoon hours of 14.11.2011

the deceased went to Guntur Railway Station, purchased a passenger train

journey ticket bearing No.40256773 from Guntur to Dhone and boarded the train

No.57328 Guntur – Dhone passenger in a general compartment. When

travelling, suddenly slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train

at KM No.252/506 in between Nandyal and Panyam Railway Stations due to

speed and sudden jerks of the train, as a result of which, he sustained severe

injuries and died on the spot.

4. Respondent – Railway administration filed the Written Statement

denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the

##PAGE3##

3

2026:APHC:35552

case was a case of suicidal death and not accidental fall from the train and as

such, the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) read with Section

124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and hence, the claim application deserves to be

dismissed, with costs.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the

following issues –

1) Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) of the deceased?

2) Whether the deceased was a bona-fide passenger of the train in question

and died as a result of an untoward incident?

3) Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed

and to what relief?

6. During the course of enquiry, the 1st applicant got examined himself

as A.W.1 and also got marked Ex.A.1 – attested copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 – attested

copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of postmortem examination report,

Ex.A.4 – original death certificate, Ex.A.5 – photocopy of ration card.

On behalf of Respondent, none was examined, but got marked Ex.R.1 –

Statutory Investigation report of DRM, Guntur.

7. On considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal dismissed

the claim petition by coming to the conclusion that the deceased had committed

suicide. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. In view

of the finding on issue No.2, the Tribunal has concluded that there is no need to

deal with issues No.1 and 3.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the

Tribunal ought to have seen that the dead body of the deceased was reported to

the Railway Officials 12 hours af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top