IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 209 of 2008()
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL
... Petitioner
2. KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION REP. BY ITS
Vs
1. MURALIDHAR, S/O.RAMAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :12/12/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
--------------------------------------
M.F.A.No.209 of 2008
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Thomas P.Joseph, J.
Heard counsel for appellants.
2. The Union of India, represented by General Manager, Southern
Railway and the Konkan Railway Corporation, represented by its Chairman seek
to unsettle the judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’) awarding compensation of Rupees four lakhs with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of registration of the case till payment
contending that no “untoward incident” has occurred, as claimed by
respondent/claimant.
3. Respondent claimed that he was a bona fide passenger in train
No.2619 on 17.4.2000, travelling from Mangaon to Ottappalam via Mangalore
and just before the train reached Veer Railway Station, he was thrown out
through the door of the compartment on its left side while the train was moving
due to the rush in the compartment. His right arm was trapped under the train
and was cut off. He claimed that he lost his luggage and railway ticket in the
incident.
MFA No.209/2008
2
4. Appellant No.1 filed counter statement contending that no such
incident involving train No,.1619 occurred and that there was no possibility of
the respondent falling into the track if at all he fell down from the speeding train.
The Station Master of Veer Railway Station reported that respondent came to
that Railway Station on 18.4.2000 at about 8 a.m. with his right hand cut off and
profusely bleeding claiming that he was a bona fide passenger in train
No.2619. Station Master admitted him in a hospital at Mahad. Co-passengers
or even the driver of the train had not reported any such incident to the Station
Master. Appellant No.1 also contended that train No.2619 passed by Veer
Railway Station on 17.4.2000 at 19.10 hours but respondent reported to the
Station Master with injury as aforesaid only on 18.4.2000 at 8.00 hours.
Appellant No.2 contended that statement of the respondent was recorded in the
message book maintained by the Station Master at Veer Railway Station as per
which the respondent claimed that he had fallen from train No.2619 on
17.4.2000.
5. Before the Tribunal, respondent gave evidence as PW1 and
proved Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the proof affidavit of the respondent. Ext.A3 is
the certificate dated 13.10.2000 issued from Mahad Taluk Police Station. Ext.A4
is the injury certificate. Ext.A5 is the copy of case sheet of Deshmukh Nursing
Home. Ext.A6 is the disability summary. Appellants did not adduce any
evidence. Tribunal considered the evidence and found that respondent suffered
injury in the “untoward incident” as claimed by him and awarded compensation.
MFA No.209/2008
3
It is contended by the appellants that the finding of the Tribunal is not correct and
that there is no evidence to show that respondent suffered injury in any untoward
incident involving train No.2619. It is also contended that respondent suffered
injury in mysterious circumstances and that attempt is made to get
compensation as if the respondent had fallen from the moving train.
6. We have gone through the judgment under challenge and
considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel. In Annexure-A4, copy
of proof affidavit respondent stated that he was travelling in train No.2619 having
purchased the ticket from Mangaon Railway Station on 17.4.2000 at about 7.00
p.m., when that train reached a curve near Veer Railway Station he was thrown
out through the door due to uncontrollable crowd in the compartment, his right
arm was cut off, he became unconscious, local people brought him to the
Government Hospital, Mahad and the next day, he reported to the Veer Station
Master who admitted him in Deshmukh Nursing Home at Mahad. Annexure-A5
is the deposition of the respondent. He gave evidence in the same line and
stated that Mangaon Railway Station wherefrom he boarded the train is about
70 kms from Veer Railway Station.
7. Though appellants contended that train No.2619 had no stop at
Mangaon Railway Station so that respondent could not have boarded the train
from that station no attempt was made to substantiate that contention. Relevant
MFA No.209/2008
4
documents in the custody of the appellants were not produced to show that train
No.2619 had no stop at Mangaon. What we find from Annexure-A5 is that
there is no serious challenge even to the version of the respondent.
8. It is true that respondent stated that the incident was on 18.4.2000
and according to the appellants, train No.2619 passed by Mangaon Railway
Station on 17.4.2000 at 19.10 hours whereas, respondent reported to the Station
Master of Veer Railway Station only on 18.4.2000 at 8.00 a.m. In the evidence,
respondent has clarified that the incident was on 17.4.2000, on sustaining injury
he fell unconscious, local people took him to the nearby hospital and on
18.4.2000, he reported to the Station Master on regaining conscience and
thereon, Station Master admitted him in Deshmukh Nursing Home. Appellants
did not take steps to examine the Station Master nor did they produce the
message book maintained at Veer Railway Station. What is available is only the
evidence of the respondent as PW1.
9. Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 provides for
appeal against every order of the Tribunal, not being an interlocutory order.
When the finding of the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the
evidence, court of appeal should be slow to interfere with that. In V.S.Ayyappan
v. Fr.Thomas Viruthiyil (1989 (2) KLJ 343) it was pointed out that when the
trial court has arrived at a conclusion on appreciation of conflicting oral
evidence, the appellate court shall not interfere with such finding unless there is
MFA No.209/2008
5
some special feature about the evidence of a particular witness which has
escaped the trial judge’s notice or there is sufficient balance of improbability to
displace his opinion as to where the credibility lies. In M.S.Jagadambal v. The
Southern Indian Education Trust & Others [(1988) 22 Indian Judicial
Reports (SC) 147], Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that appellate court
does not reverse a finding of fact based on proper appreciation of oral evidence.
It was held:
“…..The rule of practice which has
almost the force of law is that the appellate
Court does not reverse a finding of fact rested
on proper appreciation of the oral
evidence……………..”
In this case the evidence is only one way, that the respondent while travelling in
train No.2619 down and suffered injury. We stated that appellants have not
produced any evidence either documentary or oral and even the documents they
could have produced, have not been produced. We also stated that there is no
serious challenge to the evidence of the respondent as PW1 regarding the
incident. It is pertinent to note that with all the resources on its hand, appellants
are not able to say even now as howelse the respondent suffered serious injury
resulting in amputation of his right arm. It is not disputed that respondent belong
to Ottappalam. Appellants have no explanation as to howelse the respondent
happened to report to the Station Master of Veer Railway Station on 18.4.2000
MFA No.209/2008
6
at 8.00 hours with his arm chopped off and profusely bleeding. It is difficult to
think that respondent suffered injury in some other manner, reported to the Veer
Station Master with that injury and made a false claim on the appellants. Mere
fact that the claim was filed belatedly is not by itself sufficient to indicate that the
claim is of doubtful in nature. We have gone through the evidence adduced by
the respondent and we are satisfied that the Tribunal, after consideration of the
evidence rightly found that the respondent suffered injury as claimed by him. We
also take note of the fact that provision for payment of compensation for injury in
“untoward incident” is made in the Railways Act as a social measure to alleviate
the misery of persons involved in such incidents. In the circumstances, we find
no justification in admitting this appeal for consideration.
Appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY,
JUDGE.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
cks