APHC010343522019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 481/2019 Between:

1. M SUBRAMANYAM, S/O VEERA RAGHAVIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE H.NO.5-77, NARAYANARAOOPETA ATMAKUR POST, NELLORE DISTRICT PIN-

524322 A.P

2. M .SREEDHAR KUMAR, S/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER H.NO.5-77, NARAYANARAOOPETA ATMAKUR POST, NELLORE DISTRICT PIN-524322 A.P

3. M .SURESH BABU, S/O SUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE H.NO.5-77, NARAYANARAOOPETA ATMAKUR POST, NELLORE DISTRICT PIN-524322 A.P

4. M .SHREEDEVI, W/O BABU RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC.

HOUSEWIFE H.NO.5-77, NARAYANARAOOPETA ATMAKUR POST, NELLORE DISTRICT PIN-524322 A.P ...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. U NION OF INDIA, General Manager,South Central Railway, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersto set-aside the order dated

22-03-2019 in OAII u No.236 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, and consequently allow the appeal and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay. of 121 days in filing of the appeal, and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent:

1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench (for brevity, „the Tribunal‟), Guntur in OA (IIU) No.236 of 2012, dated 22.03.2019, the applicants have prefeerred the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 04.04.2012 at about 20:40 hours, the deceased, Smt.

M.Sugunamma, along with her husband, went to Nellore Railway Station to travel to Secunderabad. As she was a senior citizen and unable to climb the Foot Over Bridge, and since the train which she intended to board was about to arrive on Platform No.1, she, in order to reach the platform quickly, got down onto Platform No.4 and started crossing the railway track. After reaching Platform No.3 and while she was standing at the edge, Train No.12521 Barauni–Ernakulam Express, coming from the Vijayawada side, hit her. Due to which, she sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is the case of the applicants that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, holding a valid reserved ticket in Train No.12733 Narayanadri Express in Coach S-14, Berths No.49 and 52, dated 04.04.2012, which was seized by the GRP authorities. A case was registered under FIR No.36 of 2012, and post-mortem examination was conducted at D.S.R. Government Hospital, Nellore. Therefore, the applicants, being dependents of the deceased, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with costs and interest.

4. The respondent–Railways filed a written statement contending that the claim is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. It was contended that the incident does not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c), 124-A, and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989. It was further contended that the deceased, while crossing the railway track unauthorisedly, failed to notice the approaching train and was hit, resulting in her death, and therefore, the incident occurred due to her own negligence and carelessness and does not constitute an “untoward incident.” The respondent-railways prayed for dismissal of the claim application.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train in question as alleged?

2. Whether the incident on account of which the victim alleged to have