Madras High Court
The Union Of India Owning vs Usharani on 27 September, 2013
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.09.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.2017 of 2009 The Union of India owning Southern Railways rep.by it's General Manager Chennai ... Appellant Vs. 1.Usharani 2.Minor.Harish 3.K.A.Natarajan 4.Kuppammal ... Respondents (R2 minor rep.by his mother and guardian/next friend R1 Usharani) PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against the Order dated 07.11.2008, in O.A.No.74 of 2004, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench. For Appellant : Mr.V.Haribabu For Respondents : Mr.T.Rajamohan - - - J U D G M E N T
The appellant / respondent has preferred the present appeal against the Order dated 07.11.2008, in O.A.No.74 of 2004, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The applicants, who are the wife, minor son and parents of the deceased Ragunathan, had filed a claim application in O.A.No.74 of 2004, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation from the respondent for the death of the said Ragunathan in a railway accident.
3. It was submitted that on 06.11.2003, at about 01.40 hours the deceased was travelling as a passenger in Train No.2672, Kovai to Chennai Superfast Express and when it was in Platform No.3 at Jolarpet Railway Junction, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fallen down and sustained injuries and died without responding to medical treatment at hospital on the same day at 07.40 a.m.
4. The respondent, in their counter statement, had denied the alleged incident and had stated that the deceased had fallen down from a moving train due to his careless and negligent act and as such the respondent is not liable to pay compensation as the incident cannot be described as an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. It was submitted that the applicants have to prove that the deceased had travelled with valid travel documents at the time of the accident and also prove that they are the only dependants of the deceased.
5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed six issues namely:
i. Whether the applicants can prove that they are the only dependants of the deceased Ragunathan?
ii. Whether the applicants can prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of incident as alleged?
iii. Whether the applicants can prove that Ragunathan sustained injuries in an untoward incident on 6.11.2003 at about 1.40 hours while travelling by train No.2672 at Platform No.3 in Jolarpet Railway Station and succumbed to the injuries on the same day at 7.40 a.m., in the hospital?
iv. Whether the respondents can prove that the applicants are not entitled to any relief for the reasons set out in para 2 of the reply statement?
v. Whether the applicants are entitled to any compensation and if so, how much?
vi. What relief?
6. On the applicants' side two witnesses were examined as A.W.1 and A.W.2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A7 namely FIR, PMC, inquest report, death report, final report, death certificate and L.H.C. On the respondent's side two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and no document was marked.
7. A.W.1 and A.W.2 had adduced evidence, which are corroborative of the statements made in the claim application and in support of their evidence, they had marked Exs.A1 to A7. On scrutiny of Ex.A7, it is seen that the applicants are the legal heirs and dependants on the income of the deceased. The applicants had stated that the deceased had travelled in the second class reserved compartment in Train No.2672 and that the train ticket appears to have been lost and not retrieved by the police.
8. On scrutiny of Ex.A5, final report, it is seen that the deceased had sustained injuries in the mid night of 05/06.11.2003 and was moved to Thirupathur Government Hospital for first aid and then shifted to C.M.C.Hospital, Vellore for further treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries at 07.40 hours on the morning of 06.11.2003. Hence, the Tribunal had observed that the deceased was handled by number of agencies in transporting him to the hospitals referred to above and as such opined that the losing of ticket by him during this process cannot be ruled out and it is also clear that the inquest proceedings was conducted at C.M.C.Hospital, Vellore on the morning of 06.11.2003.
9. The Tribunal on opining that the burden of proof that the deceased held a valid ticket is impossible to be discharged by the dependants, who can have no means of knowledge about the ticket purchased by the deceased on the ground that it is likely that such a deceased passenger held a valid ticket, pass or permission, but the same was lost in the accident with the death of the person and loss of his belongings, if any. Hence, the Tribunal had opined that the burden is on the respondent to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and on observing that the respondent had not discharged the burden by adducing evidence, held that the deceased had travelled as a bonafide passenger on the fateful day in the train in question.
10. R.W.1 had adduced evidence that the Train No.2672 CBE-MAS Express did not stop at Jolarpet Junction and that after it had slowly passed through the station, some unknown person informed him that one person was lying injured near the track at the end of platform No.3 and that he had arranged for the injured to be taken to Government Hospital for treatment. The Tribunal had observed from the evidence of R.W.1 that the deceased might have tried to get down from the slow moving train and in the process would have fallen down. On scrutiny of Ex.A5, it is seen that the police had clearly concluded the case as accidental death.
11. The Tribunal had opined that the deceased's action to detrain at the non-stopping station would not go beyond the object of the statute and the purpose sought to be served by the beneficial legislation and hence held that the applicants have proved their case and hence awarded them a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as per the prescribed rate of compensation mentioned in the compensation rules. The Tribunal directed the respondent to pay the said sum within a period of two months from the date of it's order, failing which the applicants will be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till it's payment.
12. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/respondent has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
13. The leaned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the appellant is liable to pay compensation in a case where the deceased did not possess a valid authority to prove that he travelled by that train and there was no eye-witness to the alleged falling. It is contended that the Tribunal ignored the evidence of R.W.1, who clearly deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased did not possess any valid ticket. It is also contended that the Tribunal had ignored the evidence of R.W.2, who pointed out that Jolarpet is a non-stopping station and therefore the deceased could not be considered as a bonafide passenger.
14. Further, it is contended that R.W.2 had also adduced evidence that he had filed the reservation charts of all the classes of 12 train in question and that the name of the deceased was not found in the said chart. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the claim as prayed, without recording any reason or basis or any proof of the employment of the deceased or his income. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
15. The very competent counsel for the applicants has submitted that the accident had happened while the deceased was travelling in Kovai Superfast Express Train at Platform No.3, Jolarpet Junction. Immediately, he was taken to the hospital for medical treatment, wherein he had expired. The Tribunal had considered the averments of both sides and had framed six issues and granted compensation. FIR had been registered by the Railway Police Authorities and it clearly reveals that the accident had happened due to untoward incident. Further, the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train.
16. On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any lapse in the conclusions arrived at regarding mode of accident and the issue of travel of the deceased as a bona fide passenger. Hence, the above appeal does not have enough force to allow it and hence it is liable to be dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed.
17. As per records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount has been deposited by the appellant. Now, it is open to the first, third and fourth claimants, who are the wife and parents of the deceased, to withdraw their share amount, apportioned by the Tribunal, with accrued interests, subject to the deduction of earlier withdrawal, lying in the credit of O.A.No.74 of 2004, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order.
18. This Court directs the Presiding Officer of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, to deposit the minor's share amount with proportionate interest thereon, in a nationalized bank as fixed deposit in the cumulative deposit scheme, till he attains the age of a major and hand over the fixed deposit certificates to the mother of the minor claimant.
19. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Order dated 07.11.2008, in O.A.No.74 of 2004, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.
27.09.2013
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
krk
To:
1.The Vice Chairman
Railway Claims Tribunal
Chennai Bench
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court
Madras
C.S.KARNAN, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.2017 of 2009
27.09.2013