Dismissed

The Union of India Owning v. C.Kumaravel

Madras HC9 Nov 2023CMA/2418/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Union of India challenging a compensation award granted to dependants. The Court Upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal's finding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who had purchased a ticket, relying on the claimant's statement which was not disproven.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the Railway Claims Tribunal's judgment dated 24.02.2014 was confirmed.

The Union of India Owning Vs C.Kumaravel — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.No.2418 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.M.A.No.2418 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

The Union of India owning Southern Railway, Rep by its General Manager, Chennai-600 003.

¶8

... Appellant/Respondent

Vs.

1.C.Kumaravel

2.C.Arunachalam

3.M.Prema

4.N.Vijaya

5.Ayyappan

6.I.Manju

...Respondents/Applicants

¶17

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench made in O.A.No.(II-U) 212/2013 dated 24.02.2014.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

1/6

¶20

C.M.A.No.2418 of 2015

¶21

For Appellant : Mr.M.Vijay Anand For Respondents : Notice not in ready [R1 to R6] JUDGEMENT

¶22

Challenging the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2014 made in O.A.No.(II-U) 212/2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.

¶23

On 23.07.2012, prior to 11.30 hours, when the deceased Achiammal was travelling in a train which was proceeding from Nagercoil had accidentally fallen down from the running train near Gaingaikondan Railway Station, as a result of which, she sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming compensation towards the death of the deceased in O.A.No.(II-U) 212/2013. After adjudication, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimants. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.

¶24

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the Tribunal has held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, however, the deceased was not in possession of a valid train ticket when the body was recovered from the railway track. Mere presence of a body in the railway

¶25

premise will not be a conclusive proof to hold that the deceased was a bonafide https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶26

C.M.A.No.2418 of 2015

¶27

passenger and the applicants who are the dependants of the deceased are entitled for compensation. Hence the claim for compensation towards the death of the deceased as against the railway authorities is not sustainable and therefore, the impugned award of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶28

4. Though this Appeal has been filed in the year 2015, till date, the appellant has not taken any effective steps to serve notice on the respondents. Considering the pendency of this Appeal, this Court is inclined to dispose of the same based on the materials available on record.

¶29

5. It is claimed that on 23.07.2012, the deceased while travelling in the train proceeding from Nagercoil had fallen down from the moving train near Gaingaikondan Railway Station for which, a case was registered before the railway police, Tirunelveli. However, it is the claim of the appellant that the deceased was not in possession of a valid train ticket when the body was recovered from the railway track and hence she cannot be said to be a bonafide passenger in the train. It is the further claim of the appellant that mere presence of body on the railway premise will not be a conclusive proof to hold that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and hence the claim of the applicants for

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶31

C.M.A.No.2418 of 2015

¶32

compensation could not be maintained.

¶33

6. As per Sections 123 & 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 if the person had purchased valid ticket from the railways and they are termed as bonafide passenger, if they accidentally fell down from the moving train, such person is entitled for claiming compensation. In the present case, the impugned award has been passed based on the evidence of A.W.1, the first applicant who had stated that the deceased had purchased the ticket before boarding the train and that she lost the train ticket. However, no contra evidence has been adduced by the railway authorities in order to disprove the statement of A.W.1. In the absence of any contra evidence, the claim of the appellant that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger cannot be sustained and thus, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and therefore, the applicants are entitled for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and this Court does not find any perversity in the said findings of the Tribunal and hence the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be sustained.

¶34

7. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

4/6

¶37

C.M.A.No.2418 of 2015

¶38

Judgment dated 24.02.2014 made in O.A.No.(II-U) 212/2013 stands confirmed.

¶39

There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal. Consequently, the connnected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶40

09.11.2023

¶41

Index : Yes / No

¶42

Netrual Citation Case : Yes / No

¶43

NHS

¶44

¶45

1.The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai

¶46

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶48

C.M.A.No.2418 of 2015

¶49

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶50

NHS

¶51

C.M.A.No.2418 of 2015

¶52

09.11.2023

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

6/6

The Union of India Owning v. C.Kumaravel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India Owning v. C.Kumaravel

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

Dhandapani Vs Thiru Samikannu Konar

The Managing Director Vs Malarmani

K.Sathyaprakash Vs P.Manineelan

Sumathi Vs Vaithiswaran

K.R.Anbalagan Vs v.S.Palani

N.Rajkumar Vs Prakash @ Gnana Prakasam., National Insurance Co.