The High Court allowed this appeal and remanded the matter to the Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh appreciation of evidence regarding whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger in train No. 6127 travelling with an ordinary ticket.
Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Railway Claims Tribunal to decide afresh on evidence within three months.
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 T.V.ANILKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 17TH ASWINA, 1942
MFA.No.46 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OA (llu)ERS/2010/0046 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
APPELLANT/APPLICANT:
Y.PRAVEEN S/O. YOHANAN, PRINCE BHAVAN, KURA POST, VADACODE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691557.
BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI.
BY SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2020, THE COURT ON 09-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.F.A.(RCT) NO.46 of 2012
:-2-:
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2020
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed by the applicant before
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, challenging the dismissal of his claim sought under
Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act').
No.6127 Chennai-Guruvayur train (Express train)
from Nagercoil to Thiruvananthapuram and when the train reached Palliyadi near Marthandam, he was thrown out of train as a result of the jerking of the train. He claims that he was near the toilet
washing his face and but for the jerk, he would not have been thrown out.
injuries and was treated in hospital.
M.F.A.(RCT) NO.46 of 2012
:-3-:
a passenger in the train. It was contended that if
at all he was standing near the door, the accident
was out of his own negligence. It was pointed out that since the accident might have been the result of self inflicted injury, he was not entitled to claim compensation as a bona fide passenger.
examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 documents were marked. On the side of respondents, RW1 was examined and Exts.R1 and R2 were received as
evidence.
M.F.A.(RCT) NO.46 of 2012
:-4-:
and consequently his claim for compensation was
turned down.
appellant and the respondent.
M.F.A.(RCT) NO.46 of 2012
:-5-:
merely because a traveller happens to be on footboard, claim for compensation cannot be negatived in as much as the Act intended to benefit
M.F.A.(RCT) NO.46 of 2012
:-6-:
the community of passengers and a liberal view ought to be taken in favour of the claimant. It is contended that a traveller with an ordinary ticket in an Express train is nevertheless a passenger defined by the Act and cannot be excluded from the definition of 'passenger' in the Explanation to proviso in Section 124-A of the Act. To support the plea that the appellant was a bona fide passenger entitled to compensation irrespective of the class of ticket taken for the journey, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following decisions reported in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar [2008(2) KLT 700 (SC)] , Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018(2) KLT 1060(SC)] , Jayan v. Union of India (2013(3) KLT 501) , Union of India v. A.Geetha & ors. (2017(3) KHC 303) , Raju K.Thomas & anr. v. Union of India (2017(4) KHC 59) , Union of
India v. Leelamma & ors. (2009 KHC 256) ,
M.F.A.(RCT) NO.46 of 2012
:-7-:
Jayalakshmi & ors. v. Union of India (2011(2) KHC
706) and Union of India v. Deena (2012(4) KLT 5) .
the concerned railway servant, it is an
M.F.A.(RCT) NO.46 of 2012
:-8-:
unauthorised journey, for which, he was liable to have been prosecuted under Section 137 of the Act.
It is also submitted that no compensation is payable to a passenger who sustains injuries due to his own criminal act and an accident arising out of such an act is not considered to be an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. In this respect, he relied on two decisions in Union of India v. Nandabai [2016(1) KLT Online 2241 (Bom.Nagpur)] and S.K.Sharma v. The General Manager, Railway(ILR (2007) MP 397).
passenger of train No.6127. The Tribunal has to
re-appreciate the evidence and enter a definite finding as to whether the appellant was travelling
M.F.A.(RCT) NO.46 of 2012
:-9-:
in train No.6127 with ordinary ticket.
appellant could have travelled in the Express train with an ordinary ticket and such travel affected legal right to claim compensation as bona fide passenger can arise only when there is a clear finding on reappreciation of evidence as to whether or not, the appellant was a passenger in train No.6127. If the learned Tribunal enters a factual
finding on this question in favour of the appellant, then it will also consider the claim of the appellant for compensation in the light of the
above legal submissions made by the counsel on either side.
reorganising nod of the authorised servant
depending on the facts of the case. Travelling with
M.F.A.(RCT) NO.46 of 2012
:-10-:
an ordinary ticket in an Express train may not by itself amount to an offence under Section 137 of the Act unless the intention of the passenger was to defraud the Railway. He could claim himself to be a bona fide passenger depending on facts of the case. An offence under Section 137 may not be readily presumed irrespective of all facts and circumstances since the test for attracting commission of offence in the proof of criminal intention of the passenger to defraud the Railway administration.
M.F.A.(RCT) NO.46 of 2012
:-11-:
In the result, setting aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2011, this appeal is allowed remanding the matter back to the Railway Claims Tribunal to decide the issues afresh on evidence, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall issue notice to the parties immediately on receipt of the records.
All pending interlocutory applications are
closed.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE
ami/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger in train No. 6127 within the meaning of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
Whether travelling on an ordinary ticket in an Express train without prior permission negates compensation under the Act.
Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim due to unclean hands.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya KumarExplained¶49
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar [2008(2) KLT 700 (SC)]
Union of India v. Rina DeviExplained¶49
Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018(2) KLT 1060(SC)]
Jayan v. Union of IndiaExplained¶49
Jayan v. Union of India (2013(3) KLT 501)
Union of India v. A. Geetha & ors.Explained¶49
Union of India v. A.Geetha & ors. (2017(3) KHC 303)
Raju K. Thomas & anr. v. Union of IndiaExplained¶49
Raju K.Thomas & anr. v. Union of India (2017(4) KHC 59)
Union of India v. Leelamma & ors.Explained¶49
Union of India v. Leelamma & ors. (2009 KHC 256)
Jayalakshmi & ors. v. Union of IndiaExplained¶49
Jayalakshmi & ors. v. Union of India (2011(2) KHC 706)
Union of India v. DeenaExplained¶49
Union of India v. Deena (2012(4) KLT 5)
Union of India v. NandabaiExplained¶60
Union of India v. Nandabai [2016(1) KLT Online 2241 (Bom.Nagpur)]
S.K. Sharma v. The General Manager, RailwayExplained¶60
S.K.Sharma v. The General Manager, Railway(ILR (2007) MP 397) · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Y. Praveen S/o Yohanan
Union of India
T.V. Anilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
