Madras High Court
A.Jesintha vs Union Of India on 5 October, 2018
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.10.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.M.A.No.2058 of 2011
A.Jesintha ... Appellant
Versus
Union of India
Owning Southern Railway
rep. by General Manager,
Chennai - 600 003. ... Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987, against the order dated 14.03.2011 in
O.A.No.183 of 2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai
Bench.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Rajamohan
For Respondent : Mrs.T.P.Savitha
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 14.03.2011 made in O.A.No.183 of 2010 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
2. The case of the appellant is as follows:
The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the http://www.judis.nic.in appellant is the daughter of the late Meenakshi, who have residing in 2 Chennai and the mother of the applicant / appellant is used to go to Villianur Church at Pondicherry by train. On 12.05.2010, the deceased travelled by any one of train to go to the above said Church. While so, accidentally the appellant's mother had fell down form the train at Perani Railway station, where from she was immediately taken to Tindivanam Government Hospital and thereafter she was shifted for better treatment in Chennai Government Hospital, where the doctor declared that she was brought dead. On 13.05.2010 at 9.50 hours, Dr.Tamilselvan/GGH/CNI-3, examined the deceased and stating that she is aged about 60, had accidentally fell down from the train at Perani Railway Station, she had suffered succumbed injuries on her head, cause dead on the way for hospital treatment. After, her demise, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station (GRP) CNI, Chengalpattu was registered a case in CGL. R.S.Crime. No.155 of 2010 u/w 174 of Cr.P.C and taken up for enquiry. In order to ascertain the true cause, post-mortem was conducted on 14.05.2010 at morning 10.30 hours by Dr.Rajamani Beemrao and issued a Post-mortem certificate of the deceased was expired due to head injuries sustained in the accidental fall. Based on the Post-mortem certificate, the above said Police had sent a final report on 20.12.2010 to the Tahsildar, Periamet, Chennai and the respondent / Police has also enclosed the Death Report, Accident Register from the Government Hospital, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Further, a reply statement was filed by the respondent / Police under Rule 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1989 and the respondent denied that the said accident had fallen from the train Perani Railway Station on 12.05.2010, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, since the appellant has not been produced any ticket to prove that the deceased had travelled that train on that day. It could be seen from reports, there is no proof that the deceased was travelled in that particular train on that day and the report does not reveals that the nature of the accident or any detention reported by the Driver / Guard or Station Master, there is no eye witness for the alleged incident.
Eventhough, the Government Railway Police, Chengalpattu had registered a case in Crime No.155 of 2010 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C is only based on the message received from the Government Hospital, Chennai and Post mortem Certificate reveals that there is no external injuries were found on the body of the deceased.
Further, the learned counsel for the respondent contend that there would be multiple injuries and fractures on the body of the deceased and also submitted that in the above said facts the death would caused by some other reasons other than fall from the train, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989.
http://www.judis.nic.in Hence, the Tribunal has considered the applicant petition and 4 answered negative to the applicant and dismissed the application. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the appellant herein/ applicant.
Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. The case of the appellant is that on 12.05.2010, the injured was taken by one 108 ambulance and admitted in Govt. hospital/ Tindivanam and the journey ticket along with the personal belongings were lost and could not be traced by the Railway Police. Thus the applicant has come with the specific averment to the fact that the injured was helped by Station Master. From the report, no such incident was reported on 12.05.2010 as per control message book. In the instant case, the applicant has relied mainly on the two documents as per Ex.A-8 and A-9. Ex.A-8 is the death intimation given by the Government General Hospital/ Chennai to the plice and Ex.A-9 is the Accident Register extract of Government General Hospital/ Chennai. Both these documents reveal that the injured was brought to Government General Hospital/ Chennai by one Kasturi. Whereas in Ex.A-8, the said Kasturi is mentioned as mother in Ex.A-9, she is mentioned as daughter, for reasons best known, the applicant/ appellant herein has not produced the said Kasturi before the Tribunal.
http://www.judis.nic.in Per contra the statement given by the appellant is stating that 5 expired Meenakshi is mother and she is mentioned as his daughter and also the said applicant have not appeared these investigation. The said expired was not appeared as evidence before the Tribunal and when there was no such examination has been done by the petitioner to prove that the said accident has occurred and she is entitled for the compensation.
It is seen from the proof affidavit statement of the appellant that she is only legal heir of the deceased Meenakshi, which was marked as Ex.A-3/ legal heir certificate. The Station Master denied the said accident has not occurred if any occurs immediately it would brought to notice of the Station Master and the same would be marked in the Register, which was maintained in their office. When there is denial of department there is no such incidents clearly taken place in per contra, the applicant where not able to prove the said accident occurred on the Railway Station.
It could be also seen from the train conducted by the said person and also the Post-Mortem report has been persuaded of this Court and it could be seen from the Doctor, who has conducted Post-Mortem has observed that there is no external injuries seen on the body of the deceased and the deceased finger nails beds bluish in colour, head, skin, scalp, skull, duva were intact. Sub-Duval, Hemorrhage was seen all over the brain surfaces. Brain maltar was softened and oede materis c/s was pale.
http://www.judis.nic.in Neck, hyoid bone and other structure were intact. Thorax was well 6 formed. Rib cage was intact. Both lungs softened c/s was congested. Heart was flably charybers contained seant fluid blood and pieces of dark soft clotted blood. Abdomen stomach contained 70ml of white turbid fluid with no specific odour c/s muscara was paled. The Bladder was empty. The uttres was empty. The liver/spleen/kidney were softened c/s was congested. While considering the Post-Mortem report there is no such evidence to prove that the deceased death was caused by fallen from the train. Ex.A1/ Post-Mortem report issued by the Doctor had categorically observed that the given findings are there is no visible injuries, internal injuries and bones broken. The death of the appellant's mother is suspicious. Moreover, when a person is travelling in a moving train or running train and at the time, if a person fallen from the train, it would cause grievous injuries either fracture or some other external injuries or at least inside injuries found on the body of the deceased, but if it is not found on the body of the deceased. Hence, this Court has come to the conclusions that the injuries are not happened to the person fallen from the train, due to the said accident in the passing valid reasons produced by the appellant's side to prove that the deceased person was fallen from the train and cause dead.
In the result, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Railway Tribunal, which had correctly come to the conclusion http://www.judis.nic.in on the evidence produced before the Court and the appellant is 7 not in a position to prove their case that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, this Court has decline their exhibits to the effect this appeal is dismissed.
05.10.2018
klt
Index : yes/no
Internet :yes/no
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
To
1. The Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chennai Bench.
http://www.judis.nic.in