High Court disposed of an appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal order granting compensation to an applicant for an accidental fall from a train. The Tribunal rejected the railways' contention that the passengers fell while disembarking.
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 COURTFOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTHDAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDANDTWENTY TWO
PRESENT THE HONOURABLESMTJUSTICEP.SREE SUDHA
C.M.A . NO: 158 OF2011
Appeal under Section 23 ofRailway Claims TribunalAct, againstthe Order in oAANo.4Tgof2005dated3otlll21loonthefileoftheRailwayClaimsTribunal, Secunderabad Bench. Secunderabad.
Between:
The Union of lndia, Rep.byits Secunderabad.
General Manager, South CentralRailway,
...APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT
AND
Smt. E.Kalyani, W/o E.Raghu, R/o Plot No.'127,Chilakanagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District Andhra Pradesh
...RES'.NDENT/ AppLrcANT
For the Appellant: SRI PERI PRABHAKAR, Advocate
For the Respondent: SRI B.PARAMESWAR RAO, Advocate
The Court delivered the following: JUDGI\4ENT
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
C.M.A.No.158 of 2O11
ORDER
l. ]'his appcal is Iiled b1' theUnion of tndia aggrlevedbv the order dated 30. I 1.201O passed in O A.A.No,229 & 479 ot 2005 on the ille if t}-re Railway ClaimsTribr-rnai,SecunderabadBench, rvhcrebl, thc Tribunalgranted a sumol Rs.4,00,000/-to thc iLpplicant therein u'ithinterest @6ok per annum from thc darte ol- appLic:tttorl tilllhc date ol aLu'arcl andtllerceLl'tt'r trt clrll' pcr iurllLLInL ill itsIr:alisiLtior-r.
Learnt:d courlselfor the appellant would contendthat as ) p()r 1)tc Irll? andinqueslrep<-rt'tthc decctrsecl got dolvn fro n-t f)}-]armav?tramExpress at Malakpet and rl'hilc crossing the track I-rit b1 7686Express ancl resulted in cleathand as such the rzrilu'aysneed t-tot pa)' rhc compensationtis itlalls \'ithin the c.rltlatt.lltlttlnprovidcdundcr Sccrion124-A oi the Raillal s Act r,i ncl lhiLtcrossingo[ thc track amounts to lrespetss andialls under thcproviso to Section 124-A of the Raiiu'a)'sAct The appcl\antalsociisputes tl're rc\alionshipof thc clt:cease-cls'ith thrr
:iPPcl\at'tt'
7
3
that as per thepost-mortemreport, the causq of deathof the father of the applicant was due tohead injury and mother sustained multiple injuries.If at all they intent to get downat Malakpet Railway Station to catchthe city bus, there is no necessity to purchase the railwaytickets upto Kachiguda Railway Station and accordinglygrantedcompensation u'ith 1i) 1( r'(tsL
\
Sd/-B,S CHIRANJEEVI JOt REG ISTRAR i/TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER
To 1. The RailwayClaimsTribunal, Secunderabad Benchat Secunderabad' (with recordsl 2. One CC'to Sri PeriPrabhakar, Advocate(OPUC) 3. On" CC to SriB.Parameswar Rao, Advocate(OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy Kj "*r-
HIGH COURT
DATED:16/03/2022
ORDER
CMA.No.158 of2011
N
)f ,l ll i) ) lrii.:l
<br>,: n*// ,/
.o.9r*.r
DISMISSING THE CMA.
#fr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether compensation granted by the Railway Claims Tribunal in a case of accidental fall from a train should be interfered with despite the appellant's contention that the fare was purchased for a dif
Whether the High Court should interfere with the finding of fact of the Tribunal that the fall was due to a sudden jerk and not self-inflicted or accidental suicide.
Union of India
General Manager, South Central Railway
Smt. E.Kalyani
P.Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
