DASARI LAXMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the applicant against the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad in OAA No. 8 of 1977, dated 16-10-1997 dismissing the claim.

(2.) As per the averments of the application, on 9-10-1996 while the deceased Dasari Nageswara Rao was trying to Board Secunderabad Palasa "Visakha Express' at Yelamanchili Railway Station, he slipped and fell down the train accidentally and sustained injuries. Subsequently, he died in the Government hospital, Visakhapatnam. The applicant being the wife, who is a dependent on the deceased , made a claim for compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs in respect of the death of her husband. No written statement was filed by the Respondent Railways authorities. Thereafter, the Tribunal framed the issue whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not and thereafter recorded the evidence of both sides and decided the issue holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as there is no evidence showing that he had purchased the ticket and therefore, dismissed the application of the claimant. Aggrieved by that, the applicant has come up in the present appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim of the applicant. It is contended that the deceased was carrying on business in the sale of cigars at Visakhapatnam. On the date of the accident, he along with two others, carrying on the similar business, was proceeding to Visakhapatnam by 'Visakha Express' and the evidence of the co-passenger (co-seller) clearly shows that the deceased purchased the ticket by borrowing Rs. 20/- from the co-seller, as at the booking counter, it was informed that there is no change for Rs. 100 note which was offered for the purchase of the ticket and hence the deceased had borrowed Rs. 20.00 from P.W. 2 and purchased the ticket, which was clearly deposed by P.W. 2. In the light of the said evidence and in the absence of any other Contra evidence, the Tribunal :was not justified in rejecting the claim of the Applicant/ claimant. The learned counsel also contended that the provisions which are intended to award compensation to the dependants of the deceased in an accident where it causes death of a passenger; the burden cannot be imposed on the dependants to prove that the deceased passenger was a bona fide passenger. The learned counsel also contended that the burden should be on the Railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in order to deny its liability to pay the compensation as provided under the provisions of the Railways Act. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Raj Kumari v. Union of India, 1993 Acc CJ 846, where it was held that the burden to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is on the Railways. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India v. Soram Bai, 1998 (2) Accidents Judicial Reporter 254, where a similar view was taken by the Rajasthan High Court, following the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court referred to above. The learned counsel also relied upon an'unreported decision of this Court in the case of Gullipalli Lakshmikanthamma v. G.M. South Central Railway, Secunderabad, CMA 2097 of 1997, dated 26-4-2002 (reported in 2002 (4) Andh LT 344). The learned counsel therefore, contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to the above decisions, apart from the evidence on record and therefore, sought for setting aside the impugned order.