Allowed

Safiya P.M v. Union of India

Kerala HC3 Jan 2022MFA (RCT)/69/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge set aside the Compensation Commissioner's dismissal of a railway accident claim, holding the absence of a ticket did not preclude bonafide passenger status. The court awarded revised compensation of Rs.8 lakhs based on an amended schedule and granted interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 awarded with interest at 9% p.a. on Rs. 4,00,000 till 22/12/2016 and 6% p.a. thereafter.

Safiya P.M Vs Union of India — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3^rd DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943 MFA NO. 69 OF 2016 (E)

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2016 IN OA II U ERS 064/2014 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶6

APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:

¶7

1 SAFIYA P.M 2 NASEERA P.M.

¶8

3 ASMA P.M.

¶9

4 MUJEEB RAHMAN P.M. 5 HABEEB RAHMAN P.M.

¶10

6 NASEEBA P.M. 7 JUNAID

¶11

8 MOHAMMED JABIR 9 MOHAMMED JASIM P.M., ALL ARE RESIDING AT PUTHIYAVEETTIL MEPPAYIL, BEACH ROAD, VADAKARA BEACH P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673103. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶13

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI.

¶14

BY ADV SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, SC, RAILWAYS

¶15

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MFA No.69 of 2016

JUDGMENT

A claim petition was dismissed by the Compensation Commissioner on the sole ground that the victim was not a bonafide passenger. The said finding was rendered on the sole ground that no train ticket was seized from the body of the deceased.

¶20

A mere presence of a body in railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or the deceased was a bonafide passenger. At the very same time, the absence of a valid railway ticket with the injured or the deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger and the initial burden lies on the claimant can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts, then the burden will shift on the Railway to show the contrary (see Union of India v. Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572] . The decision rendered by the Apex Court in

¶21

MFA No.69 of 2016 3

¶22

Kamarunnissa v. Union of India (2017 ICO 853) relied on by

¶23

the learned counsel for the respondent in support of his argument that the victim was not a bonafide passenger will not render any assistance on the reason that the facts involved in that case is standing on a different footing,

¶24

wherein the papers, pocket diary and other papers/records showing telephone numbers were found kept in the pocket of the deceased without a railway ticket.

¶25

The report prepared by the Railway, Ext.R1, will

¶26

explain what was actually happened. It is during the course of an attempt to enter into a moving train, the deceased

¶27

fell down and succumbed to the injuries. It cannot be brought under the purview of “self inflicted injury” when appreciated in the light of report- Ext.R1 and the attending circumstances. In the instant case, the alleged accident was happened in the railway station premises. The report submitted admits the manner in which the accident was happened and it would sufficiently exclude the theory of “self inflicted injury”. Hence, the dismissal of the application cannot be sustained. The decision drawn by a

¶28

¶29

MFA No.69 of 2016

¶30

Division Bench of this Court in Raju K. Thomas and Another

¶31

v. Union of India (2017 (4) KHC 59) assumes importance at

¶32

this juncture. When two possibilities are available as to the cause of accident or the manner in which the accident

¶33

was happened, the version which would favour the victim

¶34

should be accepted in view of ameliorative legislation (beneficial legislation) intended to protect the victim.

¶35

The claim is only for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶36

The accident was happened on 09/07/2013. Subsequently, in

¶37

the year 2016, the schedule was amended incorporating an

¶38

amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) instead of

¶39

Rs.4,00,000/-. Going by the proposition laid down in Rathi

¶40

Menon v. Union of India (2001 KHC 350 :2001(2) KLT 12 :

¶41

2001 (1) KLJ 630 : ILR 2001 (2) Ker. 75 : 2001 (3) SCC 714 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1311 : AIR 2001 SC 1333, it is

¶42

permissible to grant compensation based on the subsequent amendment, being an amendment in a beneficial legislation.

¶43

Hence, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) is

¶44

awarded to the appellants/applicants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four

¶45

MFA No.69 of 2016 5

¶46

lakhs) from the date of petition till 22/12/2016 and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum to the principal sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) till realization from the respondent.

¶47

The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Safiya P.M v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safiya P.M v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savithri Vs Salil Gupta

Savithri Vs Salil Gupta

Omana Vs Salil Gupta

Baby Vs Sobhana Thankappan

Mohammed Iqbal Vs Divisional Forest Office

Velayudhan v.K., Vs P.v.Sreenijin