Madras High Court
E.Ramu vs Union Of India on 30 September, 2020
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
C.M.A.No.2786 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
C.M.A.No.2786 of 2019
1.E.Ramu
2.Mrs.R.Karpagavalli .. Appellants
Versus
Union of India,
owning Southern Railway,
Rep. By its General Manager,
Chennai – 3. .. Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims
Tribunal Act, 1989, against the judgment dated 14.09.2017 made in O.A.(II-U) No.16/2017
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sekaran
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vijay Anand, Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.R.Sekaran, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants herein, and Mr.M.Vijay Anand, learned Standing counsel for the respondent/Southern Railway, through Video Conferencing, due to COVID-19 pandemic.
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2017 passed in O.A.(II-U) No.16 of 2017 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
http://www.judis.nic.in 1/8 C.M.A.No.2786 of 2019
3. Mr.R.Sekaran, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submitted that on 25.01.2016, after completing the school exam, while deceased-R.Gajendran, son of claimants, was travelling in Train No.12635-Vaigai Superfast from Chengalpattu to Villupuram, near Tindivanam Railway Station, he fell down accidently from the running training and suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. He travelled along with his friends to bring book for preparing examination from his friend house at Villupuram. It is further submitted that the second class ticket purchased by the deceased for his travel from Chengalpattu to Villupuram was said to have lost at the time of accident. But, for the reason that he was not having the ticket, learned Railway Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, as the claimants/appellants herein have not produced the train ticket. Besides, based on the report submitted by the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as he was not having the ticket and that he fell down while he was detraining from the train, has wrongly come to the conclusion that the claimants are not entitled to get compensation, as the act of deceased is nothing but suicidal act and therefore, such suicidal act cannot be construed as untoward incident, hence, the said incident would not fall under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants further pleaded that it is an admitted case even as per the message received from the Station Master on 25.01.2016 that the deceased identified as Gajendran, son of Ramu, aged about 17 years, fell down from train No.12635- http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 C.M.A.No.2786 of 2019 Vaigai Superfast Express, as a result, he got injured and he was taken by ambulance and found dead. Even FIR No.11/2016, dated 25.01.2016, also clearly states that the deceased fell down from the running train at Tindivanam and he was taken by ambulance and found dead. Even the Accident Register dated 25.01.2016, also clearly states that the deceased had fallen down from moving Vaigai train on 25.01.2016 at 3.30 p.m. at Tindivanam railway station and sustained injuries. Therefore, from these evidences, it is clear beyond the reasonable doubt that the deceased, while travelling in training No.12635- Vaigain Superfast express, along with his 2 other friends, fell down from the moving train and died on the spot. Since all these evidences consistently mentioned that the deceased had fallen down in a moving train and died due to injuries sustained by him, the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation as prayed for. But, contrary to such evidences, the learned Railway Tribunal has erroneously non-suited the payment of compensation, which is not correct, and the findings of the learned Tribunal are not inconsonance with ratio laid down by this Court in C.M.A.Nos.2787 and 3508 of 2008, dated 03.06.2016 (A.Thanikachalam and another Vs. Union of India), wherein it is held that if a passenger died due fall from the running train, it is not possible to trace out the ticket from the dead body, as the ticket purchased by him could have been lost while he was dragged from one place to another place. Therefore, by following the said decision, as the parents/claimants of deceased have not only lost their child but also lost his future support, the claim of the claimants seeking compensation may be allowed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 C.M.A.No.2786 of 2019
5. Mr.M.Vijay Anand, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that while the deceased was attempting to detrain from the moving train (Vaigai Superfast Express), he sustained self-inflicted injuries and that Vaigai Express, being Superfast Express, has no stop at Tindivanam, where the deceased attempted to detrain from a moving train. Therefore, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sukhdev Kamlani and others Vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (1) TAC 793 (Delhi), whereby it is held that once a person is guilty of his own criminal negligence it would not fall under the expression “untoward incident” as found under Section 123 (c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the impugned order passed by the learned Railway Tribunal holding that deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that he attempted to detrain from a moving train, cannot be interfered with and on this score, he has prayed for dismissal of this appeal preferred by the claimants.
6. I fully agree with the above said submissions of the learned Standing counsel for the Southern Railway. It is to be noted that one Mr.M.Ravichandran, Station Master, Tindivanam Railway Station, was examined and he deposed that while he was on duty on 25.01.2016, Train No.12635-Vaigai Superfast Express (non stop at Tindivanam) passed through TMV Road No.2 at a slow speed at 15.16 hrs. as there was 30KMPH caution order on down line point No.63B, KM125-26-30, and after passing of train, crowds gathered at PF No.2 and immediately he rushed to the spot along with Mr.Gajendran, http://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 C.M.A.No.2786 of 2019 Pointsman/TMV, where they found one boy / deceased lying at PF.2 at KM 125/300. He was in school uniform and unable to walk and his two friends were available at that spot and on enquiry from them, it was learnt that all three friends studied at Chengalpattu and while they were detraining from a moving train, deceased had fallen down and sustained injuries. The said boy/deceased was later identified as Gajendran, son of Ramu, residing at No.11, Peria Street, Padalam, Madurantakam, but, he was not having a ticket/pass. Later- on, the victim was sent to GH by ambulance and he was declared dead. Moreover, two of his friends travelled along with the deceased were also not possessing a ticket, that shows that the argument of the appellants that he was a bonafide passenger travelled from Chengallpattu to Villupuram, cannot be accepted. Even assuming for the sake argument that the deceased after purchasing training ticket has fallen down from running train at Tindivanam and sustained multiple injuries, two of his school friends travelled along with the deceased, were available at the time of accident, but, on enquiry, it was found that both of his friends were also not possessing the ticket, that shows that neither the deceased nor his friends have travelled as bonafide passenger.
7. Secondly, as per the deposition of Mr.M.Ravichandran, Station Master, Tindivanam Railway Station, and Mr.P.Muthuraman, Constable/RPF/Tindivanam Railway Station, it could be seen that the deceased and his two friends boarded the train with an intention to get down at Melmaruvathur. Since their intended destination was Melmaruvathur, they would not have purchased a ticket till Villpuram, as it 60 kms. away http://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 C.M.A.No.2786 of 2019 from Melmaruvathur, and on the contrary, if they had asked a ticket to Melmaruvathur, then the ticket would not have been issued to them as Vaigai Superfast Express has no stop at Melmaruvathur. Therefore, conclusion reached by the learned Railway Tribunal that while getting down at Tindivanam in a moving train the deceased would have self- inflicted with injuries cannot be interfered with. Hence, as per the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in Sukhdev Kamlani's case (cited supra) that once a person is guilty of his own criminal negligence it would not fall under the expression untoward incident as found under Section 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the claim of the appellants to award compensation for the death of their son/deceased Gajendran is not tenable, for, as highlighted above, while the deceased along with his two school friends were attempting to detrain from a moving train, unfortunately, the deceased suffered multiple injuries and found dead and therefore, such an act of the deceased is nothing short of criminal negligence and it would not fall under the expression “untoward incident” as found under Section 123 (c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
8. Thus, by accepting the argument of the learned Standing counsel for the Southern Railway that not only the deceased was found without ticket, even two of his friends did not possess a ticket, I am of the considered that it is a clear case of travel without a valid ticket, therefore, the deceased cannot be construed as bonafide passenger, hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Railway Tribunal declining to grant compensation cannot be found fault with.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 C.M.A.No.2786 of 2019 In fine, for the reasons stated above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. No Costs.
30.09.2020 rkm To Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Branch.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 C.M.A.No.2786 of 2019 T.RAJA, J.
rkm C.M.A.No.2786 of 2016 30.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8