Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs M.A.Najeena on 6 September, 2010
Bench: K.M.Joseph, T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 226 of 2009()
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.A.NAJEENA.
... Respondent
2. M.A.AYSHA.
3. M.A.ANSARI.
4. M.A.AMEEN, ALL RESIDING AT
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
K.M. Joseph &
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.F.A. No.226 of 2009
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. (IIu) 42/2009. The Original Application was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 by the wife and children of late Yousuff Siddhique, an officer of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Department, seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs with interest, consequent on the death of Yousuff which took place on 21.1.2008. The Tribunal has allowed the application and granted compensation of Rs.4 lakhs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of registration of the case till payment, in the shares mentioned therein.
2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there are no materials to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. He would mfa 226/2010 2 also contend that actually the deceased had attempted to alight from a moving vehicle and according to the appellant, it cannot be treated as an untoward incident and is a self inflicted injury.
4. A perusal of the inquest report would show that actually the train had stopped and at that time the deceased decided to alight from the train. Then the train again moved. This culminated in the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased. We also note that there is no ground as such taken in the appeal memorandum regarding this aspect. It is not a case where the deceased had attempted to alight initially when the train was in motion. Therefore, we cannot say that there is any illegality in the judgment of the Tribunal on this score.
5. The further contention taken is that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. As correctly held by the Tribunal, the burden to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, was on the appellant. We notice that no evidence is produced by the appellant in this regard to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. It is also brought to our notice that the requisite affidavit on behalf of the claimants was filed to show that the deceased was working in the Motor Vehicles Department and was travelling from Calicut to Aluva. There is no reason to doubt the mfa 226/2010 3 correctness of the findings rendered by the Tribunal in this regard.
The result of the discussion is that the appellant has failed to make out a case for interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
(K.M. Joseph, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/