Two Judges allowed the appeal against the dismissal of a compensation claim. The Court held the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim, directed Railways to pay Rs. 4 lakhs with interest, and awarded Rs. 20,000 costs.
Railways directed to pay Rs. 4 lakhs with 9% interest and Rs. 20,000 costs to the appellants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933
MFA.No. 286 of 2009()
-------------------------OA.(IIU)/ERS/2009/0121 of RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
APPELLANT(S): ------------------
1. T.N.VIJAYAN AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN,THUMBIKANICKAL HOUSE, II, THOTTAKKODU P.O., PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM DT.
2. SHOBHA VIJAYAN, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.T.N.VIJAYAN, THUMBIKANICKAL, HOUSE, II, THOTTAKKODU P.O. PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM DT.
BY ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN
RESPONDENT(S): --------------------
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
svs
R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
M.F.A No.286 of 2009-A
------------------------------------------------Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2011
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The appellants are parents of a young man, aged about 22 years, who allegedly suffered injuries and succumbed to death in an untoward incident that allegedly took place while the victim was travelling in Sabari Express, Train No.7229 from Kottayam to Secunderabad on 20.02.2008. He had allegedly boarded the train at 10.30 a.m. He did not reach the destination and a relative of the appellants passed on that information to the appellants. The appellants thereupon filed a complaint before the Vagathanam police on 21.02.2008, which was registered as Crime No.31 of 2008. Ext.A6 is the F.I.R. Investigations by the police revealed that the deceased had fallen from the train, had suffered injuries and had succumbed to the injuries when he was admitted at Government Hospital, Erode. He had expired on 22.02.2008. At the place where he had fallen from the train - i.e., `Magudanchavadi', near Erode also, a crime was registered by the local police and inquest was conducted. A copy of the Inquest Report produced and marked as Ext.A7.
M.F.A No.286 of 2009 -: 2 :-
Ext.A6 is the final report submitted by the local police there. The D.R.M.'s report Ext.R1 was prepared and the respondent/Railways was in receipt of the same. All these confirm that while travelling in the train, the deceased had fallen down from the train and had suffered the injuries. He had succumbed to those injuries on 22/2/08.
M.F.A No.286 of 2009 -: 3 :-
that the respondent denies that the deceased had travelled with valid ticket and puts the applicant to strict proof thereof.
M.F.A No.286 of 2009 -: 4 :-
the impugned judgment dismissing the claim.
attention has been drawn to the oral and documentary evidence available. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the judgment of the Tribunal is perverse, to say the least. The Tribunal had totally ignored the evidence available and the contentions raised by the parties. The Tribunal has erred perversely in insisting that the claimants must have examined independent witnesses to prove the untoward incident. The Tribunal's view that in the absence of the ticket the claimants must have adduced better evidence to prove that the deceased did have a valid ticket is perverse. The Tribunal erred grossly in the light of the contentions raised and Ext.R1 report of the D.R.M. that the claimants should have adduced better evidence (in addition to that of P.W.1) to prove that the deceased had got into the reserved compartment (S2) of Sabari Express with a valid ticket. The Tribunal, the learned counsel contends, has not imbibed the spirit of Sec.124A and has mechanically and technically considered the claim. This certainly is not the manner in which the special Tribunal constituted to do justice under Sec.124A of the Railways Act should have reacted and responded to the materials before it, contends the counsel.
M.F.A No.286 of 2009 -: 5 :-
M.F.A No.286 of 2009 -: 6 :-
Incidents) Rules. Ext.R1 report is submitted by the Officer of the Force who conducted investigation under Rule 7 to the D.R.M. It is of vital significance to note that in that report the Officer of the Force had reported thus:
“On 22.02.08 a memo from GH/Erode was received by RPSI regarding one dead body has been kept in the mortuary in GH/ED due to the accidental fall from the train near the Railway track at Km 352/30-32 at DC Railway station. After all legal formalities the RPSI/ED registered a case in his station Cr.No.57/08 U/s 174 of Cr.Pc. and took up investigation.
During the enquiry it was learnt that the deceased named Jayesh Vijayan, aged 23 years, S./o. Vijayan, Thumbikanickal House, No.II, Thottakodu P.O. Puthuppalli, Kottayam district, Kerala, was fallen down from the T.No.7229 Exp near the track at km 352/30-32 in between DC RS Block hut and DC Railway stations. He was admitted GH/Erode with the assistance of Railway Staff and public on 21.02.08 at 09.30 hrs. He died on 22.02.08 at 07.10 hours.
From the light of enquiry it is revealed that the RPSI/ED collected the opinion from the Panchayath Committee, witness of the case and also medical report
M.F.A No.286 of 2009 -: 7 :-
of post mortem report and learnt that the death might have occurred due to the accidental fall from the train when caused severe Head injury.”
9. In the light of this finding in the D.R.M.'s report Ext.R1, it does not lie in the mouth of the Railways to contend that there was no untoward incident or that the deceased had not suffered injuries in the incident or that he had not succumbed to the injuries so suffered or that he was not a bona fide passenger. An apology of a contention is raised in Ext.R1 to avoid the liability and that is on the basis of the following:
“Since the investigation had cleared that the case is in “ACCIDENTAL DEATH” due to the careless and slackness of the deceased person. Therefore Railway is not responsible for any compensation and no claims need be entertained in this case.”
M.F.A No.286 of 2009 -: 8 :-
evidence that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he had succumbed to the injuries suffered in an untoward incident.
self-inflicted injury' suffered. We shall assume the worst. Negligence can never qualify to be described as a self- inflicted injury' under Sec.124A(b).(a) This appeal is allowed.
(b) The respondent/Railways is directed to pay an amount
of Rs.4 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal
M.F.A No.286 of 2009 -: 9 :-
to the date of payment, to the appellants. We further direct that a total amount of Rs.20,000/- be paid as costs to the claimants/appellants.
Sd/-
R. BASANT (Judge)
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge)
Nan/
//true copy// P.S. to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the compensation claim by finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that the incident was unproven.
Whether the Railways is liable to pay compensation under Sec. 124A of the Railways Act for the death of a passenger resulting from an untoward incident.
Whether the contention of self-inflicted injury in the Railways counter-statement is valid under Sec. 124A(b) of the Railways Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.N. Vijayan and Shobha Vijayan
Union of India represented by General Manager, Southern Railway
R. Basant
K. Surendra Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court