Madras High Court
D.Pandiaraj vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 2095
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
C.M.A.No.291 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
C.M.A.No.291 of 2020
1. D.Pandiaraj
2. P.Sarojini .. Appellants
-vs-
Union of India
owning Southern Railway
represented by General Manager
Chennai 600 003 .. Respondent
Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23
of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 to set aside the order dated 12.7.2019 made
in O.A.(IIu)/MAS/44/2019 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
For Appellants :: Mr.S.Umapathy
For Respondent :: Mr.C.V.Ramachandramurthy
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
1/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.291 of 2020
2. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by Mr.D.Pandiaraj and Mrs.P.Sarojini challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 12.7.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.(IIu)/MAS/44/2019 on various grounds.
3. Mr.S.Umapathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, assailing the impugned order, pleaded that on 21.9.2018 at about 4.00 p.m., the deceased Rajkumar, who was also a resident of Thirumayam village of Pudukkottai District and working in NSK Bearing Company, Oragadam in Chennai, while staying with his brother Madhubalan, who is also working in Nissan Car Company in Chennai, informed his elder brother Madhubalan over phone that he was going to his aunt Venkatammal's house and left for Tiruppur. All of a sudden, the appellants came to know from Salem Railway Police that on 21.9.2018 at about 16.50 hours, while their son was travelling in Train No.12601 from Tambaram to Tiruppur, due to heavy crowd in the train coupled with the jerk and jolt in the compartment, he accidentally fell down from the running train, as a result he rolled down and crushed over by the running train resulting in his head smashed, left leg cut into pieces, left hand and right hand cut into pieces, parts of his body also came out and he died at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the deceased body was noticed by Track Maintainer by name Vadivel. Mr.S.Umapathy, learned 2/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.291 of 2020 counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that an investigation was conducted in this regard. The enquiry officer conducted investigation under the provisions of the Railway Passenger (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 and submitted a report holding clearly that Mr..P.Vadivel, Track Maintainer/Doddampatti stated that on 22.9.2018, while he was performing his duty from 7.00 hours to 17.30 hours on the upline track from KM No.260/0 to 254/21 between Doddampatti and Dasampatti railway stations, he noticed a male dead body on the centre of upline track and he informed the matter to the on duty Station Master, Doddampatti. Again referring to the inquest report, he has pleaded that when Mr.Manish Kumar Verma, Station Superintendent, Doddampatti was performing his duty on 22.9.2018, at about 9.10 hours, he was informed by Mr.P.Vadivel, Track Maintainer that one male dead body was noticed at KM No.257/7-9 on the upline track between Doddampatti and Dasampatti railway stations. This matter was conveyed to Section Controller, Salem, Deputy Station Superintendent, Salem and the Government Railway Police, Salem. Thereafter, Mr.G.Kumaran, Constable/RPF/Morappur also stated that on 22.9.2018 while he was performing his duty from 8.00 hours to 16.00 hours at Morappur Railway Station, he received a message from the Post Commander, Tirupattur that a male dead body was found at KM No.257/7-9 between Doddampatti and Dasampatti railway stations. On the said instructions, when he visited the spot, he noticed the male dead 3/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.291 of 2020 body aged about 21 years lying at KM No.257/7-9 on the centre of the track with multiple injuries and also the dead body was fragmented. On further investigation, he has noticed a train ticket.
4. Again referring to the oral evidence of Mr.Dhinakaran, VAO Assistant, Witness No.1 tendered before the investigation officer, learned counsel appearing for the appellants stated that Mr.Dhinakaran also deposed clearly before the investigation officer that he has noticed a train ticket. Moreover, one Mr.Murugan, Witness No.3 also deposed before the investigation officer that he also noticed a train ticket that was also recorded. Even Mr.Raji, Witness No.4 also deposed before the investigation officer that on 22.9.2018 at about 14.30 hours, two police men standing near the railway track nearer to his agricultural land noticed a male dead body aged about 21 years at KM No.257/7-9 on the centre of the track with multiple severe injuries and the body was also fragmented. It was at that time, he has also noticed a train ticket. Since Mr.Dhinakaran, Witness No.1, VAO Assistant also deposed before the investigation officer that he has noticed a train ticket on the dead body, another witness Mr.Murugan, agriculturist also noticed a male dead body with the train ticket and one Mr.Raji, Witness No.4, another agriculturist, while standing in his land, noticed the dead body with the train ticket, the investigation officer, in his report, submitted clearly that 4/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.291 of 2020 although there is no eye witness for the travel and fall of the victim from running train, the deceased dead body was found at KM No.257/7-9 on the centre of up track between Doddampatti and Dasampatti railway stations on 22.9.2018 at about 8.30 hours and he has also further recorded that Train Ticket No.UMC31612759 of 21.9.2018 issued at 16.50 hours is a genuine one. Therefore, when the deceased was travelling in the train from Tambaram to Tiruppur, he died while falling down from the running train and left his train ticket along with his Aadhaar card, PAN card, driving licence, ATM card and mobile phone as evidence. That clearly shows that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger and died after falling down from the running train. Thereafter, when the claim was made, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench unnecessarily entertaining a doubt that in the photograph, no railway ticket was seen, because the photograph Ex.A10 contained the Aadhaar card, PAN card, driving licence, ATM card and a mobile phone (smart phone) and that shows that at the time of inquest, no ticket was seized from the scene of occurrence and had it been seized, it would have been reflected in the photograph taken by the police, found that the theory put forth by the investigation officer in the inquest as well as in the final report that the properties seized include the train ticket No.31612759 is not believable and it appears that it has been subsequently placed with mala fide intention. On this basis, the claim was refused and the claim petition was dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Railway Claims 5/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.291 of 2020 Tribunal ignoring the evidence, more particularly, the investigation report which recorded the evidence of several witnesses, namely, Mr.Dhinakaran, Witness No.1, Mr.Murugan, Witness No.3 and Mr.Raji, Witness No.4 and the certificate issued by the Senior Console Operator/UTS, Southern Railway revealing that the train ticket No.UMC31612759 of 21.9.2018 issued at 16.50 hours is a genuine one, is only a reading beyond the evidence. Therefore, the impugned order has to go, he pleaded.
5. Mr.C.V.Ramachandramurthy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, urging this Court to dismiss the appeal, prayed for confirming the well reasoned and speaking order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench. In support of his submissions, Mr.C.V.Ramachandramurthy, taking me through paragraph- 12 of the impugned order, read over the reasons given therein. He has pleaded that the Railway Claims Tribunal has carefully perused Exs.A8 and A9 and it was a case of circumstantial evidence, because there was no direct evidence produced to support the case of the appellants/claimants that the deceased fell down from the running train and died as a bona fide passenger. Moreover, it is not a case of untoward incident. Explaining further, he further submitted that when two tracks are running in the area, one for up direction trains and the other for down direction trains, the trains from Chennai towards Salem negotiates through down line while the trains towards Chennai 6/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.291 of 2020 through upline. Therefore, evidently, the cut up pieces of the body of the deceased were found only in the upline i.e., for trains towards Chennai. The Railway Claims Tribunal, after carefully looking into the evidence and also the place of accident, has clearly seen from the photograph that the back pack bag placed adjacent to the upline was intact without any damage. The properties seized during the inquest, although taken into account that they are all from his bag, the important evidence, namely, the photograph of properties seized taken by the police was sent to AW2 for identification, in that photograph, no railway ticket was seen. Explaining further, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent stated that the photograph Ex.A10 contained the Aadaar card, PAN card, driving lience, ATM card and a mobile phone (smart phone). That clearly shows a serious doubt that at the time of inquest, no ticket was seized from the scene of occurrence, because had it been seized as narrated by the police, it would have reflected in the photograph. Therefore, the theory put forth by the investigation officer in the inquest as well as in the final report that the properties seized included the train ticket No.31612759 (Ex.A7) is not at all acceptable, because it has been subsequently placed with mala fide intention. Therefore, the Railway Claims Tribunal entertaining a huge doubt which could not be proved by the appellants/claimants, rejected their claim holding that it is neither an untoward incident nor the deceased was a bona fide passenger, because there was no ticket found as per Ex.A10 photograph. Hence, the 7/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.291 of 2020 impugned order does not call for interference, he pleaded.
6. Although this Court is able to appreciate the finding recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal on the basis of a serious doubt entertained from Ex.A10 photograph containing Aadhaar card, PAN card, driving licence, ATM card, mobile phone (smart phone) and that did not reflect the ticket seized from the scene of occurrence, the other side of the case of the appellants also cannot be simply brushed aside. The reason being that when the incident took place on 22.9.2018, Mr.Mohana Sundaram, Station Superintendent, Salem lodged a complaint with Government Railway Police, Salem that on 22.9.2018 Mr.P.Vadivel, Track Maintainer, Doddampatti informed the Station Master, Doddampatti that a male dead body age not able to identify was found at KM No.257/7-9 between Doddampatti and Dasampatti railway stations and accepting the same, the Government Railway Police, Salem registered a case in Crime No.175 of 2018 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., and took up investigation. During the investigation, the Government Railway Police, Salem opined that the deceased, after informing his elder brother by name Madhubalan over phone that he was going to his aunt Venkatammal's house at Tiruppur, came to Tambaram railway station and purchased a Second Class superfast ticket bearing No.31612759 for the travel from Tambaram to Tiruppur and thereafter, the deceased came to Chennai Central railway station via Park 8/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.291 of 2020 station and boarded in rear side general coach of Train No.12601 express and when the train was running between Doddampatti and Dasampatti railway stations, due to heavy crowd in the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train and dragged into the upline track and died on the spot due to severe multiple injuries. When further investigation was done, Mr.Dhinakaran, Witness No.1, who is also VAO Assistant deposed before the investigation officer that while he visited the incident spot, he saw a male dead body aged about 21 years at KM No.257/7-9 on the centre of the track with multiple severe injuries and he also noticed a train ticket. In addition to the evidence recorded from Mr.Dhinakaran, VAO Assistant, Mr.Murugan, who is also an agriculturist, while standing near his agricultural land, deposed that he noticed a male dead body aged about 21 years at KM No.257/7-9 on the centre of the track with the train ticket. Yet another witness Mr.Raji, who was also an agriculturist, while standing near his agricultural land, noticed a male dead body aged about 21 years with multiple severe injuries with the train ticket. Therefore, the investigation officer submitted a report that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as train ticket no.31612759 was found in his possession at the time when the investigation was carried on. When the investigation report has recorded the evidence of Mr.Dhinakaran, VAO Assistant and whose evidence also has been corroborated by two other witnesses, namely, Mr.Murugan, Witness No.3 and Mr.Raji, Witness No.4 who are agriculturists, 9/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.291 of 2020 while standing in their field, saw the dead body with the train ticket, the doubt entertained by the Railway Claims Tribunal that the photograph taken by the railway police marked as Ex.A10 contained only the Aadhaar card, PAN card, driving licence, ATM card and mobile phone without a train ticket makes the claim of the appellants as unbelievable, poses a question whether the suspicion and doubt entertained by the Railway Claims Tribunal can be accepted at all. The reason being, as mentioned above, when Mr.Dhinakaran, VAO Assistant after visiting the incident spot between Doddampatti and Dasampatti railway stations clearly deposed that he noticed a male dead body with the train ticket, this has not been considered by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Moreover, the evidence adduced by Mr.Dhinakaran before the investigation officer has been corroborated by two other witnesses, namely, Mr.Murugan, Witness No.3 and Mr.Raji, Witness No.4.
7. In view of the above, when the deceased was found with the train ticket bearing No.31612759 in his possession at the time of identification, which has been certified as a genuine one, it goes without saying that he was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, we have to accept the claim of the appellants that while the deceased was travelling on the fateful day from Tambaram to Tiruppur, fell down from the running train due to over crowd and jolting. Hence, it has to be construed as an untoward 10/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.291 of 2020 incident. For all these reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the civil miscellaneous appeal stands allowed. The respondent is granted twelve weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to deposit the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- along with the statutory interest before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench and on such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. No order as to costs.
Speaking/Non speaking order 17.09.2020
Index : yes/no
ss
To
1. The Additional Registrar
Railway Claims Tribunal
Chennai Bench
11/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.291 of 2020
T.RAJA, J.
ss
C.M.A.No.291 of 2020
17.09.2020
12/12
http://www.judis.nic.in