Appeal against Railway Claims Tribunal judgment denying compensation for accident. Court upheld dismissal, finding appellants failed to establish deceased was a bona fide passenger.
Civil miscellaneous appeal and judgment dated 16.09.2015 in O.A.(II-U)No. 108 of 2014 confirmed.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.03.2021 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.M.A.No. 1588 of 2017
1.E.Veeramuthu 2.V.Bharathi
..Appellants/Applicants
Vs
The Union of India Owning Southern Railway Rep. By its General Manager, Chennai- 600 003. ..Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against the judgment dated 16.09.2015 made in O.A. (II-U) 108/2014 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Selvam
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vijay Anand
JUDGMENT
The judgment dated 16.09.2015 passed in O.A.(II-U)No. 108 of 2014 is under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
"5.6 On perusal of records and hearing the arguments on either side, the following observations are made...:
(i) In this case, FIR (Exh.A-1) was registered on 25.06.2013 at 09.20 hours on receipt of information by SM/MMC based on information through public about a dead body lying at Up slow line between PER-VPY at KM 4/40-88.
(ii) As per inquest (Exh-A2) only a cell phone and I.D. card were recovered at the scene of incident and there was no recovery of any journey ticket.
(iii) In the O.A. the appellants have stated that the deceased was travelling in a train "towards chennai". There is no indication as to originating point of alleged journey by the deceased.
(iv) In the inquest report as well as the final report (Exh.A-4) there is no mention of the originating point of the alleged journey of the deceased.
(v)Only in the affidavit filed on 07.09.2015 and in the deposition, A.W.1 has claimed that he had dropped the deceased at Perambur Railway Station which were not at all recorded in the police investigation reports.
(vi) In the affidavit, AW-1 had stated that deceased had told him that he had to attend a
company meeting at Guindy along with coemployer Karthic on 25.06.2013. However, there is no reference to the said Karthic in the inquest and in the final report of police. (vii) During cross-examination, AW-1 stated that said co-worker Karthic did not accompany him. AW-1 during cross-examination stated that he did not know whether the deceased purchased ticket or not.
As such, inference is that the applicants had not let in any credible evidence to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or his travel and fall."
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS IV ) /true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
ssm
To
+1 cc to M/s.M.Selvam Advocate sr16782
+1 cc to M/s.M.Vijay Anand Advocate sr16447
C.M.A.No. 1588 of 2017
ssn(co)
aa09/04/2021
1.E.Veeramuthu 2.V.Bharathi
The Union of India Owning Southern Railway
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
