Dismissed

Smt a.Jesintha v. Union of India

Madras HC5 Oct 2018CMA/2058/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected a compensation claim for the death of a railway passenger whose ticket was lost. The Court upheld the dismissal, noting that the Station Master denied the accident and the post-mortem showed no external injuries consistent with falling from a moving train.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 14.03.2011 of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Smt a.Jesintha Vs Union of India — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.10.2018

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶4

C.M.A.No.2058 of 2011

¶5

A.Jesintha

¶6

... Appellant/Applicant Versus

¶7

Union of India Owning Southern Railway rep. by General Manager, Chennai - 600 003. ... Respondent/Respondent

¶8

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987, against the order dated 14.03.2011 in O.A.No.183 of 2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.T.Rajamohan For Respondent: Mrs.T.P.Savitha

¶10

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 14.03.2011 made in O.A.No.183 of 2010 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, wherein and whereby the claim for compensation for the death of the mother of the appellant was rejected.

¶11

2-1.The case of the appellant is that she is the daughter of the deceased Meenakshi, a resident of Chennai. It is stated that the said Meenakshi used to go to Villianur Church at Pondicherry by train. On 12.05.2010 at 9.50 hours, after informing the appellant, the said Meenakshi had travelled by one of the trains to go to the above said Church. While travelling in train, she had accidentally fallen down from the train at Perani Railway station, wherefrom she was immediately taken to Tindivanam Government Hospital and thereafter, she was shifted for better treatment to Government Hospital in Chennai; however, not responding to the treatment, she died at 10.10 pm on the same day. The appellant/applicant came to know about the accident from the Chengalpet Railway Police Station. According to the appellant/applicant, the journey ticket for the travel of the deceased seemed to have been lost along with her personal

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

belongings such as money purse, clothes etc.

¶14

2-2.After her demise, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station (GRP) CNI, Chengalpattu has registered a case in CGL R.S.Cr.No.155 of 2010 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and taken up for enquiry. In order to ascertain the true cause, postmortem was conducted on 14.05.2010 at morning 10.30 hours by one Dr.Rajamani Beemrao and he issued a post-mortem certificate stating that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of head injury. After completing the investigation, the Police submitted a final report on 20.12.2010 to the Tahsildar, Periamet, Chennai, to the effect that it is train accident death.

¶15

2-3.Claiming to be the legal heir of the deceased Meenakshi, the appellant had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of her mother Meenakshi.

¶16

3.Resisting the claim of the appellant/applicant before the Tribunal, the respondent had filed a reply statement under Rule 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1989, denying that the said Meenakshi (deceased) had died due to accidental fall from train at Perani Railway Station on 12.05.2010. It is further contended by the respondent that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, since the appellant has not produced any ticket to prove that the deceased had travelled in train on that day. It could be seen from the records that there is no proof to show that the deceased had travelled in that particular train on that day. Further, there is no eye witness for the alleged incident. Even though the Government Railway Police, Chengalpattu had registered a case in Crime No.155 of 2010 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C, it is only based on the message received from the Government Hospital, Chennai and post-mortem Certificate reveals that there is no external injury found on the body of the deceased. Thus, the respondent sought for dismissal of the claim application.

¶17

4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the applicant/appellant, the appellant examined herself as A.W.1 and marked nine documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. On the side of the respondent, neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced and the submissions made on either side, has come to the conclusion that the applicant has failed to prove the factum of travel and fall of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/applicant.

¶18

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that after the fall from the train, the said Meenakshi (deceased) was taken to the Hospital with the help of the Station Master, by

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

108 ambulance and admitted in Government Hospital at Thindivanam. The journey ticket for her travel has been lost along with her personal belongings such as money purse, cloths, etc and the same could not be traced by the Railway Police. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the Tribunal has failed to consider the findings of the investigation officer in the Inquest report marked as Ex.A.5 as well as the final report marked as Ex.A.6, wherein it has been stated that the death was due to the injuries suffered in the accidental fall from the train. As per the FIR, marked as Ex.A.4, the cause of death is train traffic accident. Without considering these aspects, the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the application. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant sought for setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal.

¶21

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that if the deceased had really fallen from the train, there would be multiple injuries and fractures on her body, but there is no external injury found on the body of the deceased. In the above said facts, the death would have been caused by some other reason, other than fall from the train. The respondent is not liable to pay any compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal has rightly considered the application and answered the points in negative against the applicant and dismissed the application. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent sought for dismissal of the above appeal.

¶22

7.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

8.It is the case of the appellant that on 12.05.2010, after falling down from the train, the said Meenakshi (deceased), with the help of the Station Master, was taken by 108 ambulance and admitted in Government Hospital at Tindivanam and the journey ticket along with the personal belongings was lost and it could not be traced by the Railway Police. Thus, the applicant has come with the specific averment that the injured Meenakshi (deceased) was helped by Station Master. Whereas from the report of the Station Master dated 08.02.2011, no such incident was reported on 12.05.2010 as per the Control Message Book. In the instant case, it is seen that Ex.A-8 is the death intimation given by the Government General Hospital at Chennai to the police and Ex.A-9 is the Accident Register extract of Government General Hospital at Chennai. Both these documents would reveal that the injured was brought to Government General Hospital by one Kasturi. It is to be noted that in Ex.A-8, the said Kasturi is mentioned as mother and in Ex.A-9, she is mentioned as daughter. For the reasons best known, the applicant/appellant herein has not produced the said Kasturi before the Tribunal.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

9.Further, though it is stated by the appellant that the said Kasturi is none-other than the appellant, who had converted into Christianity and changed her name as Jesintha, there is no document produced to prove the same. In the proof affidavit, there is no mention of the name change made by the appellant. It is further seen from the proof affidavit filed by the appellant that she is only legal heir of the deceased Meenakshi and legal heir certificate was marked as Ex.A.3. The Station Master denied that such accident has occurred on the said date. Further, if any such incident occurs, immediately it would be brought to notice of the Station Master and the same would be marked in the Register, which was maintained in their office. When there is denial by the Railways Department stating that there is no such accident had taken place, the applicant has to prove that the said accident occurred on the Railway Station, but she failed to do so.

¶26

10.The Doctor, who has conducted Post-mortem on the body of the deceased person, has issued a post-mortem certificate (Ex.A.1), observing that there is no external injuries seen on the body of the deceased and the deceased finger nails beds bluish in colour. Head, skin, scalp, skull & duva were intact. Hemorrhage was seen all over the brain surfaces. Brain matter was softened and oede materis c/s was pale. In the neck, hyoid bone and other structure were intact. Thorax was well formed. Rib cage was intact. Both lungs softened c/s was congested. Heart was flably charybers contained seant fluid blood and pieces of dark soft clotted blood. Stomach contained 70ml of white turbid fluid with no specific odour c/s muscara was paled. The Bladder was empty. The uttres was empty. The liver/spleen/kidney were softened c/s was congested. It is the opinion of the Doctor that the deceased would appear to have died of effect of head injury.

¶27

11.From a perusal of the Post-Mortem Certificate (Ex.A.1), it is seen that the Doctor had categorically stated in the PortMorttem Certificate that there no external injuries seen on the body of the deceased. There is no visible injuries, internal injuries and bones broken found on the body of the deceased. The death of the appellant's mother is suspicious. Moreover, if a person falls down from a moving train, he/she would sustain grievous injuries such as fracture or some other external injuries. But, such things are missing in this case. In the instant, as has been mentioned in the Post-mortem Certificate (Ex.A.1), there is no external injuries found on the body of the deceased. Hence, it cannot be concluded that the death of the said Meenakshi (deceased) has occurred only due to the fall from the train. Considering the factual aspects of the case, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. This Court does not find any infirmity in

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the
same is dismissed, confirming the order dated 14.03.2011 made in
O.A.No.183 of 2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chennai Bench.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
(klt)
To,
1. The Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR section,
High Court, Madras – 600 104.
+1cc to Mr.T.Rajamohan, Advocate, S.R.No.68931
+1cc to Mr.T.P.Savitha, Advocate, S.R.No.68771
C.M.A.No.2058 of 2011
EV(CO)
rrs 05/10/2018

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Smt a.Jesintha v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt a.Jesintha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The G.M., Vs Mr.Annamalai

A.Murugan Vs Pari Thiriveni

R. Rangasamy Vs Kasthuri

R. Balavenkatraman Vs Tl Natarajan

Perumal Pillai Vs Meenakshi

R.Chandrasekaran Vs R.Thirunavukarasu