THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.248 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by order, dated 23.03.2011, in O.A.A.No.164 of 2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Ms. N.S.Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for appellant, and Mr. Sanjeev Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent.

3. Appellant/applicant is the son of the deceased, claims a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for death of his father. It is the case of the appellant/applicant that his father (deceased) went to Yadgir (place) to visit his relative(s), in return journey the deceased along with his relative (Subramaniam) came to Yadgir Station on 18.06.2005, purchased a ticket and boarded train No.545, Bijapur-Raichur Passenger, for Raichur. While travelling, the deceased fell accidentally from the train at Kilometer No.589/0-1 between Chegunta and Krishna Railway Stations and died. In the accident, the deceased lost his bag and ticket was in that bag. Railway Claims Tribunal examined AW1 and AW2 (for applicant), RW1 (for respondent) considered Exs.A1 to A6 (marked on behalf of applicant), Exs.R1 to R4 (marked on behalf of respondent), arrived at a conclusion that no compensation was payable on the ground that the passenger/deceased committed the act in a state of intoxication. Tribunal relied on the postmortem report i.e., Ex.A3, postmortem report stated that stomach of deceased was full of toddy. Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the case of the deceased falls under exception (d) to Section 124A of Railways Act and held that applicant is not entitled for compensation.

4. The order of the Tribunal is under challenge in the present CMA filed by appellant/applicant.

5. Learned counsel for appellant/applicant submits that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and boarded the train bearing No.545 of Bijapur-Raichur. Passenger at Yadgir Station, accidentally fell under the train at Kilometer No.589/0-1 on 18.06.2005, in the evening hours, between Chegunta and Krishna Railway Stations and died. It is further submitted that Subramaniam, was examined as AW2 and he stated in his cross examination that the deceased boarded train at 7:00 p.m., that his evidence was unrebutted.

6. Learned counsel submits that no Divisional Railway Manager’s report (DRM report) was filed. That Rule 6 of Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, mandates that a DRM report has to be made available, to know what investigation has revealed, non filing of DRM report is fatal. It is further submitted that Tribunal erred in concluding, that deceased was in drunken condition on the basis of postmortem report. It is also submitted that Tribunal erred in not considering the percentage of alcohol present in the blood of the deceased, which should be the basis to arrive at a finding that the deceased was in a drunken state at the time of accident. That in the absence of any such medical examination report by the concerned medical officer regarding the alcohol content in the blood, the Tribunal could not have arrived at a finding merely on the basis of postmortem report. It is also contended that if it was a case where the deceased fell from the train, evidence of the locomotive driver was essential. It is submitted that three railway personnel attended and RW1 was present at the inquest and he did not deny the inquest report.

7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in CMA.No.503 of 2019 to buttress the contention that there needs to be evidence regarding the percentage of alcohol in the blood of the deceased. Counsel further relied on the judgment of this Court in CMA.No.862 of 2017 reported in 2022 LawSuit(TS) 1122 to canvas that if at all the deceased committed suicide, statements of the guard and driver of the train have to be recorded and the same should be part of the DRM’s report and that in the absence of any such st