IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 195 of 2009(U)
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MALATHI, W/O.LATE RAVI,
... Respondent
2. KISHORE KUMAR, S/O.LATE RAVI,
3. UTHRANAM, MOTHER OF LATE RAVI, DO. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS
For Respondent :SRI.A.K.MADHAVAN UNNI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :09/03/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.F.A. No.195 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
Challenge in this appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims
Tribunal Act is to the judgment dated June 19, 2009 in
O.A.(Illu)No.5/2008 of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench
awarding a compensation of Rs.4lakhs with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of application to the applicants for the loss caused to
them on account of death of one M.Ravi in an untoward incident
involving the railway.
2. The facts in brief are these:
The respondents/applicants are the wife, minor son and mother of
deceased Ravi. They filed the application under Section 16 of Railway
Claims Tribunal Act against the appellant/Railway Administration for
payment of compensation for the death of deceased M.Ravi on the
ground that they are the dependents of deceased who died as a result of
the injury sustained by him in an untoward incident which occurred on
MFA.No.195/2009 2
August 6, 2005 at 00.35 hours at Parappanangadi Railway Station
involving a passenger train bearing No. 6627, Chennai-Mangalore
Express. The case of the applicants was that deceased was travelling in
Chennai-Mangalore Express on 06/08/2005 with a valid II Class
unreserved ticket which was lost during the course of the incident and
that near Parappanangadi Railway station deceased slipped and fell
down from the running rain and that due to the injury sustained, he
died.
3. The appellant/railway administration filed a reply statement
contending that the train has no stop at Parappanangadi, that when the
train was passing through the said station, the deceased attempted to
get down from the moving train and fell down and succumbed to the
injuries , that the incident does not attract the provisions of accidental
falling from the train and that therefore the appellant/respondent is
absolved of its liability under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 124
A of the Act.
4. The first applicant was examined as PW1 and claimants
produced Exts.A1 to A8 before the Tribunal. The appellant/Railway
MFA.No.195/2009 3
did not adduce any evidence. On an appreciation of evidence, the
Tribunal found that deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train and
he died as a result of an untoward incident and therefore claimants are
entitled for compensation and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation. The Railway Administration has come up in appeal
challenging the said judgment of the Tribunal.
5. Heard the standing counsel for Railways/the appellant and
the counsel for the respondents/claimants.
6. The following points arise for consideration :
1) Whether the deceased was a bonafide
passenger of the train in question ?
2) Whether he died as the result of the
untoward incident as alleged by the claimants ?
3) Whether the judgment of the Tribunal
can be sustained ?
7. Counsel for the appellant/Railways argued that the
claimants have not produced the journey ticket of the deceased and has
not proved that claimant was a bonafide passenger of the train in
MFA.No.195/2009 4
question, that as the train has no stop at Parappanangadi, the deceased
might have attempted to get down from the moving train and that
therefore, the Railways is absolved of the liability as provided under
Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 124 A of the Railways Act.
8. Counsel for the respondents/applicants on the other hand
supported the judgment of the Tribunal.
Points 1 to 3
9. First applicant was examined as PW1 and the S.I. of Police,
Parappanangadi who registered the criminal case in respect of the
incident was examined as PW2 on the side of the applicants. PW1 is
not an eye witness to the incident. It is seen from Ext.A9, copy of the
final report and Ext.A10, the copy of the FIR that the Station Master of
Parappanangadi Railway Station had informed the concerned police
that while Chennai-Mangalore Express bearing No.6627 passing
through Parappanangadi railway station at 00.35 hrs. on August 6,
2005, a passenger fell down from the running train and was found dead
on Road No.1 near Station House and a pocket book with the name
written in Tamil -M.RAvi was also found. Further in the reply
MFA.No.195/2009 5
statement, the Railway has admitted that the deceased was a passenger
of the said train. But their case is that he might have attempted to get
down from the moving train and fell down. Therefore, the fact that the
deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question is clearly
proved even though the applicants did not produce the Railway ticket
of the deceased. No evidence is adduced on the part of the Railways to
show that the deceased sustained injuries while attempted to get down
from the moving train. That being so, the Tribunal is perfectly
justified in holding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the
train and that he died due to the fall from the train which comes within
the definition of “an untoward incident” under Section 123 ( c) (2) of
Railways Act.
10. An attempt was made on the side of the counsel for the
appellant to bring the case within the exception provided in Clause ( C)
of proviso to Section 124 A which provides that no compensation shall
be payable, if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to his own
criminal act. But no evidence is adduced by the Railways before the
Tribunal to prove the above aspect.
MFA.No.195/2009 6
11. The fact that the applicants are the dependents of the
deceased is not disputed and that as per the Compensation Rules, they
are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs.
12. In the result, we confirm the impugned judgment of the
Tribunal awarding compensation to the claimants. It follows that the
appeal is devoid of any merit and has to be dismissed.
Respondents/applicants will be entitled to cost.
The Appeal is dismissed with cost.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
sv.
MFA.No.195/2009 7