Appeal against Railway Claims Tribunal dismissal denying compensation for train accident injury. Court held presumption of valid ticket applies, strict liability under Section 124A negates fault/negledence defenses, and injury was not self-inflicted.
Appe allowed; matter remanded to Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh disposal of compensation claim.
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 K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2017/12TH SRAVANA, 1939
MFA.No. 134 of 2013 (C)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.A.(IIU) ERS/2012/0027 ON THE FILE OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, DATED 09.01.2013
APPELLANT/APPLICANT: -
RAKESH P.R., S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 18 YEARS, AMAL BHAVANAM, PERINGALA P.O., CHENGANOOR, ALAPPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT PALATHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, NECHOOR P.O., MANEED, PIRAVOM VIA.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -
UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI.
BY ADV. SMT.REZIYA.P.A., SC, RAILWAYS BY ADV. SMT.LIZAMMA AUGUSTINE, SC, RAILWAYS BY SRI.C.S.DIAS, SC, RAILWAYS
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DMR/-
K. HARILAL & P. SOMARAJAN, JJ.
M.F.A. No.134 of 2013
-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 03rd day of August, 2017 J U D G M E N T
P. Somarajan, J.
Aggrieved by the order in OA(llu)/ERS/2012/0027 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, the applicant came up with this First Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act').
alleged to have been happened while he was travelling in a train. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the application firstly on the reason that no document or evidence was adduced in order to show that he was having a valid ticket at the time of alleged incident and that he was a bona fide passenger. Secondly, on the ground that the alleged incident was happened due to criminal negligence on the part of the victim and lastly on the ground that it is a self inflicted injury, which would come under one of the exceptions carved out of Section 124A of the Railways Act.
M.F.A. No.134 of 2013
2
another AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh 23 and Joji C. John v. Union of India 2002 (1) KLT 678].
M.F.A. No.134 of 2013
3
the Railways Act. This view is stood as fortified by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Jameela & Ors. v. Union of India reported in AIR 2010 SC 3705. The question whether the accident was happened and whether the injuries sustained are self inflicted injuries also raised before the Railway Claims Tribunal and it was answered against the petitioner. One of the exceptions attached to Section 124A of the Railways Act is the self inflicted injury. The expression “self inflicted injury” was explained in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.46 of 2015 dated 14.06.2017 drawn in Raju K. Thomas and another v. Union of India . Hence, no further discussion is necessary to hold that the alleged injury and the incident would not come under the purview of the exception “self inflicted injury”. So, the Railway Claims Tribunal went wrong in appreciating all these three grounds, and hence the same is liable to be set aside and we do so by allowing this appeal.
In the result, the matter is remanded back to the Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with the law in force, based on the discussions made above. The parties shall
M.F.A. No.134 of 2013
4
appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 19.09.2017 or any other day that may be notified by the Tribunal in that behalf and the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter by fixing the compensation which can be awarded to the petitioner on account of the injuries sustained. No order as to costs.
K. HARILAL (JUDGE)
P. SOMARAJAN (JUDGE)
DMR/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower tribunal correctly applied the presumption of a bona fide passenger under the principle of no-fault liability in railway accidents.
Whether the injury falls within the exception of self-inflicted injury under Section 124A of the Railways Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Parameswaran PillaiExplained¶26
Union of India v. Parameswaran Pillai 2012 (4) KLT SN 25 (C.No.25)
Union of India v. Baburao Koddekar and anotherExplained¶26
Union of India v. Baburao Koddekar and another AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh 23 · Who else cites this
Joji C. John v. Union of IndiaExplained¶26
Joji C. John v. Union of India 2002 (1) KLT 678
Jameela & Ors. v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶28
Jameela & Ors. v. Union of India AIR 2010 SC 3705 · Who else cites this
Raju K. Thomas and another v. Union of IndiaExplained¶28
Raju K. Thomas and another v. Union of India M.F.A.No.46 of 2015 dated 14.06.2017
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh P.R.
Union of India
K. Harilal
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
