##PAGE1##

1

2026:APHC:21904 APHC010020662020

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

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 32 OF 2020 Between:

1. M BAHAVANI, W/O LATE M. SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O BRAHMANA VEEDHI AGRAHARAM,

CHEEPURUPALLI, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT AND

1. UNION OF INDIA, GENERAL MANAGER,EAST COAST RAILWAY, BHUBANESWAR. ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent:

1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:

2

2026:APHC:21904

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 32 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by The Railway Claims

Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) in O.A II (U) No.163 of 2013, dated 05.09.2019 the Applicant has preferred the present

Appeal.

2. The brief facts of the claim application of the Applicant before the

Tribunal is that one Mr. M. Nagaraju (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) with a view to go to E-Road junction to work as a contract coolie and went to Parvathipuram Railway Station in the early hours of 18.06.2012, purchased II Class Journey Ticket of super fast train, boarded Train No.13351. As there was heavy rush of passengers in the compartment and due to jerk and jolt, the deceased accidentally slipped from the running train in between railway stations Gopalapatnam and Duvvada, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot in the morning hours of same day i.e 18.06.2012. Therefore, the Claimant

filed the Claim Petition seeking compensation from the Respondent.

3. The Respondent/ Railways has contested the claim application by

filing written statement, wherein it is averred that the Applicant has no cause of action as their claim does not fall under Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act and that as per inquest report, no travelling ticket was found with the deceased at the time of conducting inquest and requested to dismiss

the claim application.

3

2026:APHC:21904

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been

settled for trial by the tribunal:

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) are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

5. In support of claim of Applicant she filed her Affidavit along with

certain documents. On behalf of Respondent – Railway, DRM’s inquiry report

has been placed on record.

6. Upon hearing both counsel, upon considering the oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased was neither a bonafide passenger of the train nor his death is proved to have occurred due to an untoward incident and dismissed the claim of the

Applicants. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned Central

Government Counsel for the Respondent.

8. During hearing learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that

the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The learned tribunal without appreciating the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act, simply dismissed the claim of the Appellant.

Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.

4

9. Learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent would

contend that the deceased was not possessing valid railway journey ticket at the time of untoward incident. Therefore he cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. The claim is not fall under Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Therefore there is no fault or lapse on the part of the railways in the alleged mishap; the Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the Appel