Madras High Court
The Union Of India Owning vs ) Ruban Alexander on 9 June, 2022
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.04.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
The Union of India owning
Southern Railway rep. By its
General Manager, Chennai ... Appellant/ Respondent
Vs.
1) Ruban Alexander
2) Rani (minor)
Rep. By Grand mother
and next friend Perumayee ... Respondents /
Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987 to set aside the order made in
O.A.No.191 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai
Bench, dated 03.02.2014.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Vijay Anand
For Respondents : Mr.T.Rajamohan
*******
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
Page No.1 of 9
C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014
JUDGMENT
The first respondent, as claimant filed the claim petition in O.A.No.191 of 2013 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- contending that the accident on 14.11.2012 was an "untoward incident" as defined under section 123 (C) (2) of the Railways act 1989 and that he was a bonafide passenger in the train.
2. During the pendency of the appeal, the first respondent died and his only daughter has been impleaded as the second respondent. The claim was opposed on the ground that the accident to the first respondent was not an untoward incident and that he was not a bonafide passenger. It was claimed that the accident happened only due to the sole negligence of the claimant and therefore, the Railway is not liable to pay compensation.
3. The Tribunal, on consideration of materials placed before it, gave a finding that the first respondent herein was a bonafide passenger and that the incident was an untoward incident and he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-. The liability of the Railways is under challenge in this Appeal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.2 of 9 C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014
4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant could not be a bonafide passenger as he did not file the ticket along with his application to prove that he was a bonafide passenger and therefore the conclusion that he was a bonafide passenger is not correct.
5. The second contention is that the claimant travelled sitting on the foot step of the compartment putting the leg outside the compartment and therefore, the act of the claimant will not come under the definition of untoward incident and therefore, the compensation ought not to have been awarded.
6. Whether these two contentions are acceptable is the issue to be considered. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the claimant has stated in his application itself, that his journey ticket was lost while he was shifted from the place of occurrence to the hospital. In the evidence of the claimant, the claimant has stated that he purchased a combined ticket for himself and his friend and it was purchased for a sum of Rs.110/- for the journey from Dindigul to Tirunelveli. The Tribunal has considered the fact that the purchase https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.3 of 9 C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014 of a ticket has been mentioned in the General diary extract of the police, as per exhibit A-1.
7. Considering the possibility of the ticket having been lost during transit in 108 ambulance and considering the evidence of the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the claimant was a Bonafide passenger and therefore, this finding does not require any interference.
8. Yet another issue to be considered is whether the accident to the claimant was an untoward incident. The version of the claimant was that the train was fully crowded and he travelled near the door of the compartment and when the train stopped at Nalli, another train came in the adjoining track and due to the pull and push, he fell down and sustained injuries. The very same version has been spoken to by the claimant to the police which finds a place in 161 Cr.P.C. statement and also in the diary extract.
9. The fall of the claimant is admitted by the appellant but only the cause of the fall is under dispute. According to the Railways, the claimant was standing on the footboard of the train and when the train stopped at the station, he tried to get down on the off-side of the train, during which time he got https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.4 of 9 C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014 misbalanced and lost control, as a result of which he fell down.
10. To prove this version of the Railways, no one has been examined on the side of the Railways. The statement of Duraipondy a co-passenger was available in the report of the D.R.M. but the Railways has not chosen to examine Duraipondi.
11. The Tribunal has taken note of the implication of non-examination of the said Duraipondi and has arrived at the correct conclusion that the incident took place was an untoward incident and therefore this finding do not require any interference.
12. The first respondent herein is the claimant and died on 29.11.2014 and the second respondent as the daughter of the deceased had been impleaded by the order of the court. There is no issue regarding survival of the cause of action on the part of the second respondent. Under these circumstances, the benefit of the Award in favour of the 1st respondent would pass for the benefit of the second respondent and it is ordered accordingly. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.5 of 9 C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014
13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.06.2022
nvsri
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
To:
1) The Registrar, The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench,
2) The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.6 of 9 C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014 J.NISHA BANU, J., sts Judgment made in C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014 09.06.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.7 of 9 C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014 C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014 NISHA BANU, J., At the instance of the learned counsel for the claimants, today, this matter has been listed under the caption "for being mentioned".
2.The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that in the result portion, liberty has not been granted to the claimants to withdraw the award amount.
3.Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants, in the order dated 09.06.2022 paragraph No.13 shall be read as follows:-
"In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant/The Union of India, owning Souther Railway, Rep.by its General Manager, Chennai, is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.1,12,000/- together with interest at 6% from 01.07.2013 till 03.02.2014 and thereafter 9% per annum, till the date of realization and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in any of the Nationalised Bank, in the Fixed Deposit scheme, and it has to be renewed periodically, till the 2nd respondent/minor attains majority. Till such time, the guardian of the minor – Perumayee is entitled to get the accrued interest amount once in three months, directly from the Bank.”
4.Registry is directed to issue fresh order copy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
Page No.8 of 9
C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014
Jer 19.07.2022
NISHA BANU, J.,
Jer
C.M.A.No.2167 of 2014
19.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
Page No.9 of 9