Union of India Owning Vs Kulandaivel Nadar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

C.M.A. NO. 3181 OF 2009

¶6

Union of India owning
Southern Railway,
Represented by
its General Manager,
Chennai – 600 003.

¶7

1. Kulandaivel Nadar.

¶8

2. Kamalammal

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, to set aside the order of the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 02.07.2003 made in
O.A. No. 2001 00053 of 2001.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.M.T.Arunan

¶12

For Respondent 2 : Mr.T.Rajamohan

¶13

 R1 : Died

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This appeal has been filed by the Union of India,
Chennai, challenging the order dated 02.07.2003 passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A. No. 53 of 2001
under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

¶16

2. Under the impugned order, the Appellant has been
directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs only) to each of the respondents/claimants for the death
of their son, K. Gnanaraj, who died in an untoward incident that
took place on 11.08.2001 while he was travelling in a Train
No.6010 and due to a fall from the said train at Tiruvellore
Railway Station in Platform No.4 at 22.45 hours, he sustained
injuries and thereafter, due to the said injuries, he died at
the Government General Hospital, Chennai on 14.08.2001.

¶17

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

¶18

3. The respondents/claimants made a claim before the
Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A. No. 53 of 2001
seeking compensation and under the impugned award, the aforesaid
compensation was directed to be paid by the Appellant to the
respondents who are the parents of the deceased.

¶19

4. According to the Appellant, the Tribunal erred in
allowing the application filed by the respondents as according
to them, since the deceased attempted to get down from a moving
train which resulted in the accident, they are not liable to pay
any compensation. It is their contention that only due to the
fault of the deceased, the accident had happened and therefore
they are not liable to pay any compensation.

¶20

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant drew the
attention of this Court to the various exhibits filed along with
the claim application and also drew the attention of this Court
to the reply filed by the Appellant before the Railways Claims
Tribunal and would submit that the accident happened only due to
the fault of the deceased. Further it is his contention that the
ticket purchased by the deceased for travelling in the train was
not produced by the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal
and therefore they have not discharged their initial burden of
proving their claim.

¶21

6. However, the learned counsel for the respondents after
drawing attention of this Court to the impugned order would
submit that the Appellant in the reply statement have admitted
that the deceased had infact travelled in the train on the date
of the accident and therefore, the respondents have discharged
their initial burden of proving their claim.

¶22

7. The learned counsel for the respondents also drew the
attention of the Court to the various authorities relied upon by
the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal which is reflected
in the impugned order and would submit that the
respondents/claimants have discharged their initial burden. He
also drew the attention of this Court to the deposition of an
eye-witness to the incident. According to him, as seen from his
deposition, the eye witness who was also travelling along with
the deceased has categorically confirmed that the deceased fell
down from the train on the date of the incident which resulted
in him sustaining grievous injuries. The inquest report was also
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents which
indicates that the deceased died only due to the fall from the
train on the date of the incident.

¶23

8. This Court has perused and examined the impugned
order. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents, the respondents have discharged their initial
burden of proving that the deceased was infact travelling in the

¶24

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

¶25

Train No.6010 on 11.08.2001. In the reply statement also, the
Appellant has admitted that the deceased was travelling in the
train bearing No. 6010 on 11.08.2001 and he fall down from the
train at Tiruvellore Railway Station. However, it is their
contention that the entire fault was on the part of the deceased
as he attempted to get down from a moving train. No contra
evidence has been produced by the Appellant to prove that the
deceased was getting down from the moving train. When there is
no contra evidence in support of the Appellant's contention,
this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has
rightly rejected the said contention under the impugned order.
The respondents/claimants having discharged their initial burden
of proving that the deceased was infact travelling in the train
on the date of the incident and it was an accidental fall, the
Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of the Appellant
under the impugned order.

¶26

9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this
appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶27

10. It is informed by the learned counsel for the
respondents that during the pendency of this appeal, the first
respondent who is the father of the deceased, died on 21.09.2010
and the death certificate has also been produced before this
Court. It is recorded. Since the second respondent who is the
mother of the deceased is the only surviving legal heir, she is
permitted to withdraw the entire award amount as determined
under the impugned order.

¶28

11. The Appellant is directed to deposit the compensation
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as determined under the impugned order
together with interest from the date of clam till the date of
deposit and costs, after deducting the amount already deposited
if any, to the credit of O.A.No.53 of 2001 on the file of the
Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such
deposit being made, the second respondent is directed to
withdraw the amount lying to the credit of O.A.No.53 of 2001 on
the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai by filing an
appropriate application before the Tribunal.

¶29

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

rgi/nl

¶33

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

¶34

To

¶35

1. The Railway Claims Tribunal,
 Chennai Bench

¶36

2. The Section Officer,

¶37

V.R.Section,

¶38

High Court, Madras – 104.

¶39

+1cc to M/s.M.T.Arunan, Advocate, S.R.No.53819

¶40

+2ccs to M/s.T.Rajamohan, Advocate, S.R.No.54206

¶41

C.M.A. No. 3181 of 2009

¶42

KSM(CO)
RLP(01/11/2021)

¶43

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

Union of India Owning v. Kulandaivel Nadar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India Owning v. Kulandaivel Nadar

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

Grt Hotels and Resorts Private Ltd. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

M/S Dolphine Chemicals Vs M/S Acsa Chimica Sri at Via

The Secretary Vs M/S Muthusamy Constructions

Consolidated Civil Vs Coimbatore Stock Exchange

The Project Director Vs R.Jayakumar

M.Gajendran Vs Everest Blue Metals