Kerala High Court
Geetha Mohan vs Union Of India on 5 August, 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938
MFA.No. 29 of 2005 ( )
-------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OA 55/1997 of RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM DATED 05-08-2004.
APPELLANT(S)/APPLICANTS:
-----------------------------------------
1. GEETHA MOHAN, W/O.LATE MOHANAN PILLAI,
GHEETHA BHAVANAM, CHERUMOODU, VELLIMON P.O.,,
KOLLAM, KERALA.
2. RENJITH, S/O.LATE MOHANAN PILLAI,
DO. DO.
3. RAKESH, S/O.LATE MOHANAN PILLAI,
DO. DO.
BY ADVS.SRI.VIJU THOMAS
SMT.M.MEENA JOHN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
-------------------------------------------
UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY GEMERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY,, MADRAS.
BY ADV. SRI.O.B.NASSEER,SC, RAILWAYS
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.SURENDRA MOHAN &
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JJ.
--------------------------------------
M.F.A.No.29 OF 2005
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
K.Surendra Mohan, J The applicants before the Railways Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are in appeal against the judgment dated 5.8.2004 in O.A.No.55 of 1997. The appellants are the wife and children of one Mohanan Pillai, who is alleged to have died as a result of injuries suffered in an untoward incident coming within the ambit of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1999. The application for compensation filed by the appellants has been dismissed, after trial. The appellants are aggrieved by the said judgment.
2. According to the appellants, Mr.Mohanan Pillai, aged 46 years had boarded the Guruvayoor-Nagarcovil express train No.6305 from Guruvayoor at 9.20 p.m on 29.9.1996. He was having an unreserved ticket up to Kollam. However, he was found occupying berth No.56 in S-1 coach by the MFA.29/2005.
2Travelling Ticket Examiner('TTE' for short). Since he was not found to have a berth, additional charges were received from him and he was allotted the very same berth, which was not occupied by anyone. The case of the appellants is that, during his travel he was thrown off from the berth because of the negligent driving of the train by the engine driver, consequent to a jolt or jerk suffered by the coach. As a result of his fall from the berth, he was not in a position to move. Therefore, he did not alight at Kollam. He was later on found by the authorities at the Nagarcovil station and was admitted to a local hospital there. Subsequently, he was shifted to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and admitted there on 1.10.1996. While under treatment at the Medical College Hospital, he died on 14.10.1996. The contention of the appellants is that, he had succumbed to injuries suffered by him consequent to his fall from the berth caused by the sudden jolt of the train.
3. The respondent disputed the contentions of the appellants. According to the Railway authorities, the deceased Mr.Mohanan Pillai was in an intoxicated condition. He had MFA.29/2005.
3boarded the train on the strength of an ordinary ticket but was found occupying the comfort of berth No.56 in S-1 coach of the train. He refused to vacate the berth in spite of a demand by the TTE on duty. Finally with the assistance of the Railway Police personnel, reservation charges were collected from him and his journey was regularised in the reserved coach. The Railway administration denied the allegation that Mr.Mohanan Pillai had fallen down from his berth in the course of his journey and had suffered consequent injuries to his head and spine, which paralysed both his legs. According to him, when the train reached Nagarcovil he was found lying on a lower berth of the compartment. Since he was not in a position to move he was admitted to the Government Hospital, Nagarcovil on 30.9.1996. It was alleged that, the deceased could have sustained injuries in his attempt to get down from the train, in his state of intoxication.
4. The Railway Claims Tribunal tried the case on the basis of the above pleadings. Both parties let in evidence. The first appellant was examined as PW1. PW2 is the doctor, who had treated the deceased. The TTE, who was on duty at the MFA.29/2005.
4relevant time was examined as DW1. CW1 is the witness, who had produced Ext C1 document. The documentary evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P8 on the side of the appellants, D1 and D2 on the side of the respondents and Ext C1 produced by CW1.
5. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence on record found that the claim for compensation made by the appellants was not sustainable. It was found that there was no evidence regarding the untoward incident that is alleged to have resulted in the death of the deceased, that he was in a state of intoxication and that, for the said reasons the appellants were not entitled to claim any compensation.
6. According to Advocate Smt. Meena John, who appears for the appellant Ext P4 Post-Mortem Certificate has identified the cause of death as the two injuries that were found on the body of the deceased, namely, one to his spine and the other in the cervical region. It is pointed out that, the doctor, who was examined as PW2 has admitted to the possibility of the injuries having been caused by a fall from an upper berth. The allegation regarding intoxication is disputed MFA.29/2005.
5by the counsel. It is contended that, admittedly the deceased had been sufficiently possessed of his faculties to pay the necessary charges for the regularisation of his journey and to get a berth allotted to him. Therefore, even if he had consumed alcohol before boarding the train, he was fully conscious and was capable of looking after himself. The injuries had been suffered by him as a result of his fall from an upper berth, where he had been sleeping. The fall was caused by the sudden jerk of the train which was travelling at a high speed. For the above reason, it is contended that an untoward incident coming within the scope of Section 124A of the Railways Act had occurred. Consequently, it is contended that tribunal erred in rejecting the claim of the appellants.
7. According to advocate Sri.C.S.Dias, who appears for the Railway administration absolutely no evidence either oral or documentary is available to support the case of the appellants that the deceased had fallen down from the upper berth as claimed. There is also no evidence to show that his fall was consequent to a jerk caused to the train while stopping suddenly. In the absence of any such evidence it is contended MFA.29/2005.
6that Section 124A of the Act is not attracted. It is further pointed out that a perusal of Ext P4 reveals, the state of intoxication in which the deceased was while travelling on the train. Even upon his examination on 1.10.1996 it was found that his urine sample contained the presence of alcohol and organophosphorous compounds. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was in a state of intoxication. In the absence of any evidence to show that he had sustained any injury leading to his death, in a fall as alleged or in a manner involving the Railway administration, no compensation as claimed could be granted. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, this appeal is only to be dismissed.
8. Heard. Though it is vehemently contended by Smt. Meena John, the learned counsel for the appellants, that the deceased had died consequent to a fall from the upper berth on which he was sleeping, there is absolutely no evidence available in support thereof. It is admitted that the deceased Mr. Mohanan Pillai was travelling alone. He had boarded the train from Guruvayoor at 9.20 p.m. on 29.9.1996. He was having only an ordinary passenger ticket that entitled MFA.29/2005.
7him to travel up to Kollam. According to DW1, the TTE, who was on duty on the said date, he had found the deceased occupying berth No. 56 in S-I Coach. On being questioned, it was found that the deceased was in an intoxicated condition. Since he refused to vacate the berth, the Railway Police had to be called to the scene. Finally, the matter was resolved by recovering the extra charges for the berth from the deceased and accommodating him in the very same berth since there were no other claimants to it. It is clear from the evidence of DW1 that the deceased was intoxicated, on the fateful day. Ext.C1 report of the treatment of the deceased contains a report of the urine sample of the deceased dated 1.10.1996. The report shows that the urine sample showed presence of alcohol and Organo Phosphorous compounds. The fact that the urine sample of the deceased showed presence of alcohol even on 1.10.1996, clearly supports the conclusion that, he must have been intoxicated at the time of his travel on 29.9.1996. The medical records further show that, as part of the treatment given to him, he had been catheterized since he was suffering from retention of urine. Learned counsel for the MFA.29/2005.
8appellants has placed reliance on the evidence of PW2, the doctor who treated the deceased, and his opinion that the injuries found on the deceased could be caused either by a fall in the train or a car to contend that the deceased had suffered the injuries inside the train. Though it is probable that the injuries might have been caused by a fall, in the absence of any evidence to show that he had actually fallen down and had suffered the injuries in such fall, the opinion of the doctor cannot advance the case of the appellants. At the same time, there is ample evidence to conclude that, the deceased was intoxicated at the time of his travel by train on 29.9.1996. Ext.D2, the reservation chart of S-I Coach was almost full, all passengers were travelling to Thiruvananthapuram. If the deceased had actually fallen down from an upper berth as alleged, and had been immobilized, one or the other of his fellow passengers would certainly have come to his help and assistance. At worst, someone would certainly have alerted the TTE of the mishap. In this case, nobody has seen any such incident. According to the records, the deceased was found lying on a lower berth by the Railway Authorities, at Nagercoil. MFA.29/2005.
9His travel from Kollam to Nagercoil was without any ticket. However, according to the appellants, he had been immobilized and was unable to get down from the train. That was the reason why, he could not alight at Kollam. Even if the said explanation is accepted, the fact remains that, there is absolutely no evidence available regarding the happening of an untoward incident in this case, resulting in the death of the deceased.
9. The first appellant has a case that, the deceased had told her while he was under treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram that he had sustained the injuries in a fall from the upper berth, while travelling in the train. However, there is no evidence to corroborate the said statement. The treatment records of the deceased show that he was an alcoholic. The report of analysis of his urine sample shows the presence of Organo Phosphorous compounds. They are poisonous substances, for the presence of which, there is no explanation.
10. In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence available to substantiate the allegation of the MFA.29/2005.
10appellants that the deceased had succumbed to injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident coming within the meaning of the said expression under Section 124A of the Act. Therefore, the Railway Claims Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim of the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a number of decisions of the Apex Court, this Court as well as the Delhi High Court in support of her contention that the appellants are entitled to recover compensation for the death of the deceased. However, we refrain from discussing the dicta laid down by the said decisions at any length, since we have already found that the claim cannot be supported on facts.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE cms/sb