Madras High Court
Mrs.S.Maragatham vs The Union Of India Owning on 11 February, 2021
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
C.M.A.No.3078 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.3078 of 2019
Mrs.S.Maragatham ... Appellant
Vs.
The Union of India owning
Southern Railway,
Rep by its General Manager,
Chennai 600 003.
... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of Indian Railways
Tribunal Act, against the judgment dated 12.04.2018 made in O.A.(II-U) No.157 of
2017, on the file of the Railway Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sekaran
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vijay Anand
JUDGMENT
The award dated 12.04.2018 passed in O.A.(II-U) No.157 of 2017 is under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3078 of 2019
2. The claimant is the mother of the deceased who died in a train accident. The appellant claimant filed an application under Section 16 of the Railways Act seeking compensation on the ground that her son deceased was a resident of Katpadi. He was a Constable working in Armed Reserve Police at St.Thomas Mount, Chennai. He used to travel by train from Katpadi to Chennait to attend duty. On 24.05.2017, evening at 8 p.m, the deceased informed his mother that he was coming by train from Chennai Central.
3. The appellant came to know from the Arakkonam Railway Police that the deceased, prior to 8.30 hours on 25.05.2017, while travelling in any one of the train, due to heavy rush, speed, jerk and jolt of the train, accidentally fell down from the running train between Kadambathur and Senjipanapakkam Railway Station and suffered grievous head injury, aberrations on right hand finger, both legs and right side chest. He was shifted by the 108 ambulance and admitted in Government Hospital, Tiruvallur and thereafter, for further treatment, admitted at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai. However, not responding to the treatment, he died on 25.05.2017 at about 23.45 hrs.
4. The appellant filed the documents with reference to the accident, more 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3078 of 2019 specifically, FIR, inquest report, postmortem certificate, final report as well as the Tahsildar report. The Railway Tribunal adjudicated the issues and the Tribunal arrived a conclusion mainly on the ground that the travel ticket was not found with the deceased person nor retrieved by the police during the investigation. Thus, the claim petition is not entertainable.
5. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the deceased was a police constable working at St.Thomas Mount. He used to travel frequently from Katpadi to Chennai to attend duty. Therefore, he was possessing the season ticket. However, the season ticket also was not retrieved by the police during investigation. Based on the fact that the appellant has not established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelled in a train, the claim was rejected.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the factum regarding the accident was established. This apart, the documents relating to the accident were also filed before the Railway Tribunal by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant more specifically contended that the Tahsildar's final report categorically enumerates that the deceased sustained grievous injuries and found nearby the track and he was taken by 108 ambulance to Thiruvallur Government Hospital and treatment was 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3078 of 2019 provided, but, subsequently, he died in Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai on 25.05.2017.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the deceased was not possessing a valid travel ticket and therefore, he cannot be construed as a bonafide passenger and thus, the claim petition was dismissed. Such a finding is contrary to the documents filed by the appellant when the appellant is able to establish that the deceased met with an accident in running train and his body was found in the railway track and the final report of the Tahsildar also reveals that the accident occurred due to the train accident, the appellant has established the prima facie case and therefore, the burden of proof lies on the railways to establish that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
8. The principles to be followed is that the claimant should establish at the first instance regarding the prima facie case. Once the prima facie case is established by the claimant regarding the accident, travel as well as the injuries, thereafter, if any doubt arises regarding the ticket, then, the railway is bound to establish that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger.
4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3078 of 2019
9. In the present case, the learned counsel for the respondent railway pointed out certain contradictions with reference to the facts and circumstances. Such contradictions cannot be construed to decline the relief on the ground that the railway has proved that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Certain minor contradictions in such accidents are routine and possible and such contradictions cannot be held against the claimant as the award of compensation is a welfare scheme and therefore, the minor contradictions with reference to the facts and circumstances are certainly possible in all cases and therefore, the Courts are bound to adopt a pragmatic view so as to ensure that the benefits of the welfare scheme are extended to the victims who died due to the train accident.
10. In the present case, the report of the Tahsildar reveals that the deceased met with an accident and he was alive at the time of providing information. The left hand fingers were crushed and aberrations were found. He was found alive in the railway track and taken to Government Hospital, Thiruvallur through 108 ambulance. This being the factum, there is every reason to believe that it is not a case of voluntary inflict or otherwise. He was admitted in the hospital and thereafter, he died at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai.
5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3078 of 2019
11. This being the factum, the minor contradictions pointed out by the respondent Railways cannot be a ground to deny compensation to the appellant victim. In such circumstances where the Railways raise certain doubts regarding the factual contradictions, then the Railways is duty bound to establish that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger beyond any pale of doubt. Always the benefit of certain doubts in circumstances, must be held in favour of the claimants, taking into consideration the scheme is for the welfare of the victims who lost their lives and their beloved ones.
12. This being the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in declining to grant compensation merely on the ground that the deceased was not holding a valid travel ticket nor any such ticket was retrieved during the course of the accident. For all possible reasons, the accident was established and further the deceased died due to the injury sustained in a train accident, therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation. The accident occurred on 25.05.2017. The Government of India issued notification on 01.01.2017, fixing the ceiling of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. Thus, the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of judgment in the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3078 of 2019
13. The respondent railways is directed to deposit the award amount with accrued interest within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the appellant claimant is permitted to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application and payments are to be made through RTGS.
14. Accordingly, the award dated 12.04.2018 passed in O.A.(II-U)No.157 of 2017 is set aside and consequently, C.M.A.No.3078 of 2019 stands allowed. No costs.
11.02.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order gsk To
1.The General Manager, The Union of India owning Southern Railway, Chennai 600 003.
2.The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3078 of 2019 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gsk C.M.A.No.3078 of 2019 11.02.2021 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/