IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 237 of 2009()
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. K.VILASINI, W/O.K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :18/09/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
-------------------------------
M.F.A.No. 237 of 2009
-------------------------------
Dated this the 18th September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
This is an appeal filed by the Union of India,
represented by the General Manager, Southern Railways, who
was the respondent before the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ernakulam, in O.A (II U) 12/2008.
2. The application was filed under Section 16 of the
Railways Act, seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs from the
Railways, for the death of one Anoob, aged 24, allegedly in an
untoward incident. It was contended by the applicants that their
son, who was working with System Net Engineers and also
studying for B.Tech at Trivandrum, boarded Train No.728 Madurai
bound Passenger Train from Trivandrum, in order to go there for
treatment; that his father Sri.Ramachandran Nair was also to
accompany him and intended to board the train from Parasala,
MFA.No.237 of 2009
2
for which accommodation was reserved by the above train; that
when the train reached Parasala, the deceased who was standing
near the door of the compartment accidentally fell down to the
track, sustained serious injuries to his head and succumbed to it
and died in the Medical College Hospital where he was admitted
for treatment.
3. The appellant Railways denied the the accident
as a result of any fall from the train. According to them, the
deceased was found lying with injuries near the track and police
registered a case. It was further contended that the accident
occurred as a result of any hit and run over by the train while
trespassing the track and also that no journey ticket was
produced to prove that he was a bona fide passenger.
4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues based on
the evidence adduced, viz., the oral testimony of PW.1 and
Exts.A1 to A9 marked on the side of the applicants, and
proceeded to decided the issues.
MFA.No.237 of 2009
3
5. The Tribunal found that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger; that the deceased died due to untoward
incident; that the applicants are the only dependants of the
deceased, and in such circumstances, Railways is liable to pay
compensation of an amount of Rs.4 lakhs, as directed. Hence,
this appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended before us that in the absence of journey ticket, there
was absolutely no evidence to show that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger in the train and the inquest report also
shows that the death was as a result of hit and run by the train.
7. We have considered the submission. The
Tribunal found that merely because the ticket could not be traced
out from the spot of the incident by the people who rescued
him, it cannot be concluded that the deceased passenger was
travelling without ticket. In this case, the journey was a
programmed one and the tickets have been booked well in
advance, and therefore, it was presumed that the deceased
MFA.No.237 of 2009
4
passenger might have purchased ticket to cover his journey from
Trivandrum Central to Parassala also. As a matter of fact, this
finding that the journey was a programmed one and
accommodation were reserved in advance was beyond challenge.
If so, the burden to prove that the reserved traveller did not
travel in the train lies on the railways, since that is a matter
which can be easily proved by producing the chart signed by the
TTR, in case, the ticket was cancelled and issued to any other
passenger in that train. In so far as the best evidence has been
withheld from the Court and in the light of the finding that this
was a programmed journey and tickets have been booked
earlier, non-production of the ticket is of no consequence and the
finding rendered by the Tribunal, in such circumstances, does not
call for any interference. No other point arises for consideration
in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal fails, and is dismissed.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
nj.