Dismissed

M.Amudha v. Union of India

Madras HC10 Mar 2021CMA/4841/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous appeal, the Madras High Court upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal's order dismissing a claim for compensation by railway passengers whose deceased co-passenger died in a train accident. The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and likely died after crossing tracks and being struck, rather than falling. Consequ

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded to either party.

M.Amudha Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

C.M.A.NO.4841 OF 2019

¶6

1.M.Amudha (Wife of the Deceased) 2.M.Lathika (Minor Daughter of the Deceased) 3.M.Karthi (Minor Son of the Deceased) 4.Chinnakannu (Mother of the Deceased) .. Appellants/Appellants Vs The Union of India Rep. By its General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai. .. Respondent/Respondent

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987 against the order dated 06.06.2019 passed in O.A. (II-U).No.36 of 2019.

¶8

For Appellants : Mr.T.Rajmohan For Respondent : Mr.M.Vijay Anand JUDGMENT

¶9

The order dated 06.06.2019 passed in O.A.No. 36 of 2019 is under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

¶10

The claimants are the appellants and the claim petition was filed based on the fact of that on 28.06.2019 the deceased went for coconut peeling work with Sampath of Vellore District with ten members to Varshanadu in Theni District. After completing the work on 06.07.2016 to return to his native place, the deceased along with Ramesh, Muthu and Mathi purchased a General Ticket from Dindigul RS to Jolarpettai RS and boarded in Dehradun Train in general compartment at Dindigul RS. Due to heavy crowd in the train, the deceased travelled near the doorways. While travelling, he had fallen down from the running

¶11

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

¶12

train near Bommidi Yard at KM 289 Upline and sustained grievous injury and died on the spot.

¶13

The Tribunal adjudicated the issues and arrived a finding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and further the death was not by falling from the running train to qualify as untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(ii) of the Railways Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated that the tickets were produced and further the untoward incident was also established. Relying on the inquest report, the learned counsel for the appellants created a doubt by stating that the investigating authorities formed an opinion that the death could have occurred on account of falling down from a running train or due to hit by a train while crossing the railway track. When the reasons are unknown, the benefit is to be extended to the victim. When two opinions are formed regarding the crossing of the railway track and the falling down from a running train, the Tribunal has committed an error in accepting the contentions of the respondent/Railways and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants relying on post-mortem report states that there is no cut injury on the body of the deceased and there are serious injuries, resulting in death and, therefore, the Tribunal has not considered these aspects.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondent/Railways objected the said contentions by stating that valid train ticket was not produced. The Tribunal rightly relied on the nature of the injuries sustained and the cause of death. There are factual contradictions with reference to the train ticket as well as the travel by the deceased person. When the travel itself was doubtful then the untoward incident also was established.

¶17

This Court is of the considered opinion that the inquest report prepared by the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Salem Circle, enumerates regarding injuries sustained by the deceased and the same is extracted below:

¶18

jiy KGtJk; rpije;J fhy;fs; tlf;fhft[k;. Fg;g[w ft[e;j epiyapy; fhzg;gl;lJ/ jiy KGtJk; rpije;Jk;/ fGj;Jld; Jz;lhfp jiyKo njhy; cly; fhzg;gl;lJ/ ,lJ gf;fk; FUf;fthl;oy; rpije;Jk;. cs;SWg;g[fs; btspnawpa[k; tyJif Kl;oa[ld; Jz;lhfpa[k; tyJgf;f tapw;Wld; fpHpe;J Fly; btspnawpa[k; cly;KGtJk; rpije;Jk; cs;sJ/ cilfs; fUg;g[ fyh; ngz;l;. rpbkz;l; fyh; orhh;l; fhgpfyh; my;l;uh $l;o bts;is Kz;lhgzpad; Mfpait fpHpe;j epiyapy; ,Ue;jJ.

¶19

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

¶20

Undoubtedly, the investigating authorities could not able to trust upon the reasons for the accident. In the event of doubt in this regard, the other documents as well as the nature of injuries are to be considered. In the present case, no ticket was found in possession of the deceased. There is no eye witness available as the deceased was falling from a running train. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances as narrated on the side of the claimants. The chief-examination - A.W.2 wife of the deceased was also considered by the Tribunal. In this regard, paragraphs 2 to 4 of the judgment are extracted hereunder:

¶21

"2. Respondent contested the case mainly on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was recovered from the body during inquest. Further, quoting postmortem report, wherein it was recorded that head, base of skull, neck, upper chest, left arm and abdomen were crushed and claviles all cervical and thoracic vertebra, humerus, and lower end of left femur body were fractured, it was contended by the Respondent that mere fall from a running train would not have caused such a damage and disfigurement of the body. It was also submitted that Inquest and Final Reports indicated that the deceased might have carelessly crossed the track at the accident spot.

¶22

On perusal of records it is seen that the Applicants claimed that the deceased along with 10 persons went to Varshanadu in Theni District, for working with one. Sampath and while returning only four persons were travelling together. However, as per deposition of Ramesh as AW-1, who was an alleged co-passenger of the deceased along with Muthu and Mathi, four of them only were taken by one Mr.Sampath, Contractor, for coconut peeling work. While returning four of them only travelled together from Dindigul to Jolarpettai. AW-1 further claimed that he only purchased ticket for four of them and the Booking Clerk at Dindigul station gave two tickets for two adults each, costing Rs.250/- each i.e, Rs.500/- in total, and the said tickets were kept with him during the journey and that he handed over the tickets to the Police officials at Salem station on 07.07.2016.

¶23

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

¶24

It is seen that during inquest no ticket was recovered. However, as per records, a total of 3 tickets with Nos. 60575685, 60575686, 60575687, first two tickets for travel of 4 adults each, costing Rs.500/- each and the last ticket for travel of one adult costing Rs.125/- issued at 00.15 hrs at Dindigul on 07.07.2016 are available. According to AW-1 he purchased tickets for their journey and the Booking Clerk issued two tickets for two adults each. But, it is noticed that all these three tickets were issued at 00.15. For issue of a ticket, a minimum of 30 second may be taken by the Booking Clerk in non-suburban section as she/he has to ask for the destination station, number of persons travelling and to key in these data in the system, to take print out of the tickets and to collect money from the person and to return balance amount, if any. If three different persons have asked for three separate tickets for 9 persons, it would have definitely taken more than one minute for issuing these tickets and accordingly that time would have been printed on each of these tickets. But, in the copy of all these tickets, the time printed is 00.15 hrs, which indicates that the ticket issuing Booking Clerk has given a single command for printing tickets for 9 persons and since there is a built-in restriction in the Computer System to issue ticket for a maximum of four persons only per ticket, three separate tickets were printed, indicating the time as 00.15 hrs. Thus, evidently, only one person has approached the Booking Clerk for buying tickets for travel of nine persons in a group."

¶25

In paragraph 18 of the judgment, the Tribunal narrated the nature of injuries sustained based on the inquest report and the post-mortem report. The said findings are as follows:

¶26

"18. Inquest and post-mortem reports record various crush injuries and fractures suffered by the deceased. According to AW-1, the body of the deceased was in mutilated condition. Head was completely smashed, hand was severed and that he identified the body only on the basis of strain mark on the hand, which was formed due to peeling of coconuts. Final Report of the police recorded that the body was identified based on the dresses worn by the deceased. This gives a

¶27

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

¶28

clear picture as to how badly the body was mutilated. Normally if a person falls from a train, body never gets under the wheels of the train to suffer such nature of crush injuries, and hence, it points to a reasonable conclusion that the deceased might have been hit and run over by a train, while crossing the tracks. Inquest and Final reports also indicated possibility of the deceased being hit and run over by a train."

¶29

This Court is of the considered opinion that there is some serious suspicion with reference to the untoward incident as put forth by the claimants. The facts are contradictory and further the inquest report reveals that the body was completely dis-figured and the Tribunal also considered the nature of injuries in order to arrive a conclusion and formed an opinion that there is no possibility of falling down from a running train.

¶30

This being categorical finding, this Court do not find any infirmity as such and, accordingly, the order dated 06.06.2019 passed in O.A.No. 36 of 2019 stands confirmed and the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 22860 of 2019 is closed.

¶31

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssm
To
1. The General Manager,
Southern Railway, Chennai.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.T.Rajmohan, Advocate, S.R.No.15521
+1cc to Mr.M.Vijay Anand, Advocate, S.R.No.15533

¶32

C.M.A.No.4841 of 2019 AAB(CO) CS/30/03/2021

¶33

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

M.Amudha v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Amudha 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

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

N. Chinna Ramaiah, Vs the Union of India Owning

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