Partly allowed

Mohandas v. Union of India Owning Southern Railway

Kerala HC29 Sept 2021MFA (RCT)/94/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under Section 23 of the Indian Railway Act against a railway claims tribunal order. The court set aside the finding that the victim jumped from a moving train, stating the postmortem report's injuries supported a fall instead, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, for fresh consideration.

Mohandas Vs Union of India Owning Southern Railway — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

MFA NO. 94 OF 2016 (E)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.A(IIu)/ERS/2015/0006 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS

¶7

TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 MOHANDAS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/o KOCHU RAMAN UNNI, KALETHILETHU PADEETTATHIL, PATHIYOOR EAST, KEERIKKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

2 GEETHA DEVI.L., AGED 48 YEARS W/o MOHANDAS, KALETHILETHU PADEETTATHIL, PATHIYOOR EAST, KEERIKKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶13

UNION OF INDIA OWNING SOUTHERN RAILWAY, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANANGER, CHENNAI-3

¶14

BY ADV SMT.ASHA CHERIAN, SC, RAILWAYS

¶15

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

M.F.A.No.94 of 2016

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 23 of the Indian

¶20

Railway Act is against the judgment in O.A. No.

¶21

(IIu)/ERS/2015/0006 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

¶22

Based on the oral testimony of RW1 and RW2, the Tribunal found that the alleged accident

¶23

happened due to the jumping of victim from a moving

¶24

train. It is a case wherein the victim succumbed

¶25

to the injuries. Incident was happened at about 10.30 p.m. This would cast a reasonable doubt on the version given by RW1 and 2. RW1 is the Pointsman and RW2 is the Station Superintendent. According to RW1, he had seen the incident and it was happened due to the jumping of victim from the moving train. The postmortem examination report

¶26

M.F.A.No.94 of 2016

¶27

¶28

prima facie appears to be against the oral version of both RW1 and RW2, wherein the cause of injury stated due to rail accident. The injuries sustained

¶29

reveals separation of head and loss of brain matter, besides crush injuries. It was submitted that when there is an attempt to jump from the

¶30

moving train, the injuries could have been something else, but the injuries noted in the

¶31

postmortem lend sufficient support to the allegation of rail accident and a possible fall

¶32

from the train. There is a lot of difference between a fall from a moving train and jumping out of a moving train. The injuries sustained would speak volume. But the doctor, who conducted the

¶33

postmortem certificate was not examined. No

¶34

independent witness was also examined.

¶35

Mere oral testimony of two interested

¶36

witnesses, who are the employees of respondent

¶37

M.F.A.No.94 of 2016 4

¶38

Railway, cannot be substituted in the place of proof, especially when it is against the injuries noted in the postmortem examination report and the

¶39

certification therein with the cause of injuries.

¶40

Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, for which, the parties shall appear on 12.10.2021 or any other day that may be fixed by

¶41

the Tribunal with notice to the parties.

¶42

The appeal will stand allowed in part

accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Mohandas v. Union of India Owning Southern Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohandas v. Union of India Owning Southern Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cherupushpam Vs Leelamony

Leelamony Vs Cherupushpam

Vinnamchathayil Kuttan Vs Vinnamchathayil Chandran

Thatha Vs P.C.Arunachalam Thankappa

Neenamani C.P. Vs Rajamani C.P.

Lavanya Chandrasekhar Vs v.R.Govindanunni