Agam Shanthamma Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by General Manager, South Central Railway

Agam Shanthamma vs Union of India (Uoi), Represented by General Manager, South Central Railway

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Aug 22, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/446796

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/446796
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: G. Bikshapathy, J.
Decided On: Aug 22, 2002
Case Number: A.A.O. No. 977 of 1997
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed
Acts & sections: Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 124A; Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 - Rule 3; ; Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) (Amendment) Rules, 1997

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Agam Shanthamma

Advocate Sridhar Reddy Pottigari, Adv.

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi), Represented by General Manager, South Central Railway

Advocate D. Srinivas Rao, S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 124A; Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 - Rule 3; ; Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) (Amendment) Rules, 1997
Reported In: I(2003)ACC423; 2004ACJ713; 2002(6)ALT814

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........to interfere with the impugned order passed by railway claims tribunal and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.5. heard the learned counsel for the parties.6. the only question that arises for consideration is whether the finding of the tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is legal and valid.7. this issue is already set at naught by a division bench of this court in union of india v. b. koddekar, : air 2003 ap23 , wherein it was held by the division bench of this court that the burden of proof lies on the railways to prove that the deceased was a ticketless passenger. in absence of discharging that liability by the railways, it has to be necessarily held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.8. under these circumstances, the appeal is liable to be allowed in view of the above said decision of the division bench. accordingly, the appeal is allowed for a sum of rs. 2,00,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum. the respondent is directed to deposit the said sum before the tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Bikshapathy, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant challenging the order dated 25.10.1996 passed in O.A.A. No. 18 of 1996 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad.

2. A claim was laid by the legal heir of the deceased passenger alleged to have died by accidental fall from train No. 348 while travelling from Zahirabad to Vikarabad. The matter was resisted by the Railways. Basing on the respective pleadings, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?

(ii) Whether the deceased fell down from the train and died as a result of the injuries?

(iii) Whether the applicant is a dependant of the deceased? and

(iv) To what relief?

3. The Railway Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence and the material available on record came to the conclusion that the claimant is the legal heir of the deceased passenger. However, the Railway Claims Tribunal held that deceased was not a bona fide passenger on the ground that the railway ticket was not found in his possession. Accordingly, Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim, against which the present appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the burden of proof that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways and that burden has not been discharged by the Railways and, therefore, Railway Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of this court in Union of India v. B. Koddekar, : AIR 2003 AP23 . On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Railways submits that no case is made out by the appellant to interfere with the impugned order passed by Railway Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is legal and valid.

7. This issue is already set at naught by a Division Bench of this court in Union of India v. B. Koddekar, : AIR 2003 AP23 , wherein it was held by the Division Bench of this court that the burden of proof lies on the Railways to prove that the deceased was a ticketless passenger. In absence of discharging that liability by the Railways, it has to be necessarily held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

8. Under these circumstances, the appeal is liable to be allowed in view of the above said decision of the Division Bench. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The respondent is directed to deposit the said sum before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2002 Same Parties Agam Shanthamma vs Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Gener... Same Subject Civil Same Judge G. Bikshapathy, J. Acts & Sections Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 124A; Railway Accidents and Unt...

Civil