Dismissed

N. Chinna Ramaiah, v. the Union of India Owning

Madras HC10 Mar 2021CMA/3544/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Railway Claims Tribunal's order rejecting a compensation claim for a deceased coolie worker. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that the incident was not established and probable cause pointed to suicide.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.3544 of 2017 is dismissed; the order dated 07.10.2015 in O.A.(II-U) No168 of 2014 stands confirmed, with no costs awarded.

N. Chinna Ramaiah, Vs the Union of India Owning — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.M.A.No.3544 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.03.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

C.M.A.No.3544 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.11548 of 2016
1.N.Chinna Ramaiah
2.Mrs.N.Sarojanamma ..Appellants
Vs.
The Union of India owning,
South Central Railway,
Rep.by its General Manager,
Secunderabad. ..Respondent

¶7

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against the judgment dated 07.10.2015 made in O.A.(II-U) No168 of 2014 by the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

¶8

For Appellants : Mr.R.Sekaran For Respondent : M/s.T.P.Savitha

¶9

J U D G M E N T

¶10

The order dated 07.10.2015 passed in O.A.(II-U) No168 of 2014

¶11

is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

1/7

¶14

C.M.A.No.3544 of 2017

¶15

The claimants are the appellants and the Claim Petition was

¶16

filed, seeking compensation under the Railways Act on the ground that the deceased was a cooli worker and used to travel by train from Nellore to Chennai. That on 23.06.2013, the deceased, in order to go to Chennai for Cooli work, left his house. The applicants came to know from the Nellore Railway Police that the deceased, while travelling in any one of the train, prior to 11.00 hrs of 23.06.2013, when the train was running between Nellore and Vedayapalem Railway Stations, due to rush, speed, jerk and jolt of the train, accidentally fell down from the running train, suffered 1) grievous injury on the right side of forehead, 2) right shoulder fractured, 3) aberration on right knee and on the back and died at the place of occurrence. It was an untoward incident. The second class

¶17

ticket purchased by the deceased for his travel from Nellore to Chennai was said to have been lost at the time of accident and the same could not

¶18

be traced by the police authorities.

¶19

The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the

¶20

documents and evidences. The Tribunal considered Exh.A1/Inquest

¶21

Report, Exh.A2 and the Exh.A3. As per the opinion of the Doctor

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

2/7

¶24

C.M.A.No.3544 of 2017

¶25

concerned, the cause of the death due to “Shock and Hemorrahage due to head injury” and approximate time of death was “between 1 to 2 days prior to PME”, which was conducted on 24.06.2013 and completed at 12.00 p.m.

¶26

The Railway Tribunal considered the deposition of Shri.P.Lokanadham. His deposition states that the deceased on 23.06.2013, travelled from Nellore to Chennai. He came to know about

¶27

the incident from newspaper. He saw the dead body at Government Hospital, Nellore. No articles were handed over to the witnesses by the Police. It is stated that the deceased left home at 2.30 or 3 p.m on the day of incident. In this context, the Railway Authorities conducted a detailed enquiry and DRM Report concluded with the following observations:

¶28

“IPF/NLR held statutory enquiry into the incident

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

and submitted his report. During the enquiry, the key man stated that on 23.06.2013, he noticed a male dead body in between two rails of up line track at Km No.171/27-29 in between Nellore-Vedyapalem Railway Stations and informed to SM/VDE. On information GRP reached the spot and conducted inquest and the deceased was not in possession of railway journey ticket

¶31

3/7

¶32

C.M.A.No.3544 of 2017

¶33

and also opined that the deceased might have fallen

¶34

from any unknown train passed on up line. SSE/P.Way/NLR issued a certificate stated that there were no jerks & jolts reported at Km No.171/27-29 between NLR-VDE railway stations on 23.06.2013. As such the cause of incident may be due to personal negligence and unsafe travelling by the deceased, hence railway administration is not responsible for the alleged mishap”

¶35

The DRM Report finally concluded that the conclusion, which reads as under:

¶36

“The enquiries reveals that the deceased was first detected in middle of two rails up line track by the on duty Key Man, and GRP authorities inquest report also speaks the version of the Key Man who noticed. While conducting inquest in presence of two mediators by the RPHC.675/GRP/Nellore the deceased did not have in possession of the Railway journey ticket. The applicants alleged in the claim application that the deceased purchased railway journey ticket at Nellore for go to Chennai, it is not believable and there is no eye witness about the purchased the ticket by the deceased. The probable cause of death of the deceased expressed in the inquest by the GRP is contradictory. The circumstances

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶38

4/7

¶39

C.M.A.No.3544 of 2017

¶40

of evidence available about the lying of the deceased in middle of the two rails of up line track which speaks might have committed a suicide by the deceased. The RPF could not witness the inquest.”

¶41

In view of the fact that the untoward incident was not

¶42

established and further, the claimants could not able to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, the Claim Petition was rejected. This apart, the DRM Report also enumerates that the probable cause of the death of the deceased is a case of Suicide. In this regard, the manner, in which, the body was lying in the Railway track, was also considered by

¶43

the Tribunal in Paragraph 14 of the judgment, which reads as under:

¶44

“14. Two more important aspects which have to be

¶45

noticed are that as per the deposition of AW-1, the deceased left home at 2.30 or 3 p.m. Wile deceased's body was located by Key man, Unit No.6 before 11.00 hrs which is so evident from the message of Dy.SS/NLR and further FIR was also registered at 13.00 hrs. Furthermore, the body was located “in between 2 rails of

¶46

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶47

up line track at Km.171/27-29”. If a person falls out of a general compartment as the deceased would have travelled to, if any, the body could not have been located or fall in between two rails of up line track & it would fall either right or left side of the track. Thus, it is quite

¶48

5/7

¶49

C.M.A.No.3544 of 2017

¶50

evident that it was not a case of fall from the train, as was projected. This aspect have a great bearing upon the findings in the present case. It has been the consistent case of the railway and of the persons who had seen the body whether it was a Keyman, GRP or otherwise that body was located in between two rails of Up line track.”

¶51

In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court do not find any perversity or infirmity as such in respect of the order passed and accordingly, the order dated 07.10.2015 passed in O.A.(II-U) No168 of 2014 stands confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.3544 of 2017 is dismissed. No costs. 10.03.2021 kak Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order To The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

¶52

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶53

6/7

¶54

C.M.A.No.3544 of 2017

¶55

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶56

kak

¶57

C.M.A.No.3544 of 2017

¶58

10.03.2021

¶59

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶60

7/7

N. Chinna Ramaiah, v. the Union of India Owning

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Chinna Ramaiah, v. the Union of India Owning

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

Swathy Vs the Regional Director

Jayasindhu Vs Mahendran

The Executive Officer, Vs Dr.Bakthavatchalam

R.Kumar Vs Union of India

M.Amudha Vs Union of India

Mr.S Afren (Wife of the Deceased) Vs the Union of India Owning