[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Suhara vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2026
2026:KER:5272
M.F.A.(RCT)No.4 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 3RD MAGHA, 1947
MFA (RCT) NO. 4 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD.14.11.2023 IN O.A.
(IIu)/ERS/17/2020 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS IN O.A.:
1 SUHARA
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O LATE ABOOBAKER V.K,
VELLAPPILLY HOUSE, ALLAPRA, NAVODAYA,
80th COLONY, VENGOLA P.O., PIN - 683556.
2 ABINS ABOOBAKER (MINOR)
AGED 17 YEARS,
S/O LATE ABOOBAKER V.K,
VELLAPPILLY HOUSE, ALLAPRA,
NAVODAYA, 80th COLONY, VENGOLA P.O, PIN - 683556.
REP. BY HIS MOTHER SUHARA, (1st APPELLANT HEREIN).
BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.ANWAR
SRI.K.S.SUMEESH
SMT.GOPIKA T.G.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN O.A.:
UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI, PIN - 600003.
BY ADV SRI.VISHNU PRADEEP, CGC
THIS MFA (RCT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.01.2026, THE COURT ON 23.01.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:5272
M.F.A.(RCT)No.4 of 2024
2
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
M.F.A.(RCT)No.4 of 2024
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Applicants in O.A.(IIu)/ERS/17/2020 on the files of the
Railway Clams Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench have filed this appeal
aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.11.2023 by which the
application for compensation filed under Section 16 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act was dismissed.
2. The appellants approached the Tribunal seeking
compensation from the respondent for the death of late
Mr.Aboobaker.V.K., husband of the 1st appellant and the father of
the 2nd appellant. According to the appellants, on 1.9.2019,
when the deceased was waiting for train at Aluva Railway
Station with a valid ticket, an express train having no stoppage
at Aluva station passed through the first platform and hit the
deceased resulting in his death. Claiming that the death was
2026:KER:5272
an untoward incident, the appellants sought compensation.
3. The respondent Railway resisted the claim by
contending that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger but
a trespasser. According to the Railway he was hit by the train
while crossing the railway track. Hence the Railway contended
that the appellants were not eligible to get compensation.
During trial the 1st respondent was examined as AW1. Exts.A2
to A12 were marked on the side of the appellants. In this case
also the Tribunal adopted the practice of marking the proof
affidavit as a document, Ext A1, contrary to the relevant Rules.
On the side of the respondent, RW1 and RW2 were examined
and the DRM report was marked as Ext.R1.
4. On conclusion of evidence, the Tribunal analysed the
case and passed the impugned order rejecting the application
for compensation.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants
Adv.Anwar.C.K. and the learned Central Government Counsel
2026:KER:5272
Adv.Vishnu Pradeep. I have also carefully perused the impugned
judgment and the records.
6. The Tribunal rejected the application mainly for two
reasons. It concluded that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger and refused to accept the case of the applicants that
the deceased had purchased a valid ticket and the same was
recovered from his bag. Next, the Tribunal concluded that the
deceased was crossing the Railway track at the time of the
accident. Now I shall analyse whether the conclusions and
findings of Tribunal are sustainable and whether any
interference is called for in this appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the applicants had produced the valid ticket obtained by the
deceased, that was recovered from his bag before the Tribunal
and the Tribunal went wrong in disbelieving the same. He
submitted that the ticket was handed over to the brother of the
deceased by police after obtaining a kaichit from him. Along
2026:KER:5272
with the ticket some other articles were also handed over. The
kaichit was produced before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal
refused to rely on the same unjustly. He submitted that perusal
of the ticket would show that the same was issued from Aluva
Railway Station on the date of accident. He argued that the
conclusions of the Tribunal on the aspect as to whether the
deceased was a bonafide passenger or not are perverse and
illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased
was on Platform No.1 at the time of the accident, and this was
spoken to by RW1, the only eyewitness. He pointed out that in
the cross-examination of RW1, initially he stated that the
deceased was on the platform and later in answer to another
question by the counsel for the Railway he answered that the
deceased was crossing the track. The learned counsel submitted
that in the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased it
can be presumed that he was on the platform and was hit by
the train from his backside. The learned counsel submitted that
2026:KER:5272
the deceased had not made any attempt to cross the track and
the said version of the Railway is not supported by any
evidence. He therefore submitted that the applicants were
undoubtedly entitled for compensation.
8. The learned Central Government Counsel Sri.Vishnu
Pradeep supported the impugned judgment. He pointed out
that the ticket produced was not a reserved ticket. Such a
ticket could be purchased by anyone. He submitted that there is
no material to show that the ticket was recovered from the body
of the deceased or from his bag. He hence submitted that the
version of the applicants that the deceased had purchased the
ticket cannot be believed. He argued that the Tribunal rightly
found that production of the kaichit signed by the brother of the
deceased was only an attempt to make it appear that the
deceased had valid ticket and it was handed over to the brother
of the deceased by police. The learned Central Government
Counsel submitted that the kaichit produced was a photocopy
2026:KER:5272
not signed or sealed by any police officer. He hence submitted
that there is every reason to suspect that the same is not
genuine. The learned Central Government Counsel further
pointed out that RW1 has stated in unmistakable terms during
his cross-examination that the deceased was crossing the
railway track. The learned CGC hence submitted that the
deceased was injured while committing the offence of
encroaching onto the railway track. He pointed out that
trespassing into railway track is an offence punishable under
Section 147 of the Railways Act. As the deceased was involved
in a criminal offence, the applicants are not entitled to claim
compensation. He referred to the DRM Report and pointed out
that the conclusion in the report was that the deceased was
crossing the track when he was hit by the train. The learned
CGC hence submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned
judgment and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
2026:KER:5272
9. The Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, has
recorded that the ticket was not recovered from the body or bag
of the deceased. It further concluded that in all probability the
kaichit produced during the course of trial as an additional
document was fabricated. In this connection a substantial
oversight has happened on the side of the Tribunal. Along with
DRM report a copy of the case diary in Crime No.1429/2019 of
Aluva Police Station registered in connection with the death of
Aboobaker was also produced by the respondent. The case diary
forms part of the record in the OA. I have examined the copy of
the case diary. In the case diary, the kaichit, copy of which was
produced by the appellants as an additional document during
the course of trial finds a place. The said kaichit was
incorporated in the case diary by the S.I. of Police, Aluva East
Police Station. It is stated in the kaichit signed by the brother of
the deceased that the back-pack bag of the deceased, dress
found in the bag, pass books of Canara Bank and Union Bank,
2026:KER:5272
the railway ticket issued from Aluva Railway Station as well as a
Nokia mobile handset were received by him from Aluva East
Police Station. As the said kaichit forms part of the case diary
maintained by Investigating Officer of Kerala Police,
genuineness of the same cannot be doubted. It is also relevant
to note that the said document forms part of the DRM report
produced by the Railway before the Tribunal. This was not
noticed by the Tribunal. The Railway has actually built up its
case on the basis of the DRM report. Without spending time to
peruse the records in order to arrive at a right conclusion, the
Tribunal regrettably held that the kaichit was concocted and
blamed the applicants. The said erroneous conclusion shows
that the Tribunal did not examine the records appropriately. It is
to be noted that the ticket was issued from Aluva Railway
Station after 9 pm for travelling from Aluva to Eraniel. The
Railway does not dispute the validity of the ticket. Hence, the
conclusion of the Tribunal that the deceased had entered the
2026:KER:5272
premises of the railway station without a ticket and he cannot
be considered as a bonafide passenger is perverse.
10. Next aspect to be considered is as to whether the
deceased was hit by the train while he was crossing the track as
alleged by the respondent. RW1 is the only eyewitness. Perusal
of his cross-examination recorded by the Tribunal shows that he
stated initially in answer to a court question that deceased was
coming from platform No.1 and was walking towards Aluva side.
Then a non-stop train came and to alert the deceased, he blew
the whistle. The deceased did not listen and got bumped by the
running train. In answer to question No.4, RW1 stated that the
deceased was on the platform. Later, in answer to question
No.14, he stated that the deceased was crossing the track. As
the Tribunal follows the practice of not recording the questions,
this Court is incapacitated from understanding real context of
answer Nos.4 and 14 which are seemingly contradictory.
However, the answer No.2 given to the court question gives the
2026:KER:5272
impression that the deceased was walking on platform No.1 and
was moving towards Aluva side of the platform when the train
entered the platform. There is no evidence to firmly conclude
that the deceased was crossing the track when he was hit by
the train. True that RW2 asserted in his evidence that the
deceased was crossing the track. However, he was not a
witness to the incident. Therefore, his evidence cannot be relied
on to decide whether the deceased was actually crossing the
track. RW1, the sole eye-witness had given a statement to
police which is available in the case diary of Kerala Police
produced along with the DRM report. RW1 stated to police that
he noticed the deceased walking through the steps provided at
south end of the platform No.1 to enter into the railway track.
He further stated that he blew his whistle to alert the person to
move away from the steps leading to the railway track in order
to avert danger. The same would show that the deceased had
not in fact entered the track. If the deceased had not entered
2026:KER:5272
the track, it cannot be said that he had committed the offence
punishable under Section 147 of the Railways Act. In my
considered view, for the reasons stated above, the conclusion of
the Tribunal that the deceased was crossing the track at the
time of accident is also not sustainable. The Tribunal referred to
the answer of RW1 to question No.14 only and ignored his
replies to the court question and question No.4. It also failed to
take note of his statement given to police. Thus, the Tribunal
erred in entering into findings against the applicants on this
aspect too.
11. It is clear from the evidence that the deceased had
purchased a valid ticket to travel to Eraniel and was waiting in
Platform No.1. Cross examination of RW1, when considered
along with his statement recorded by Kerala Police which is
available in the case diary forming part of the DRM report would
show that the deceased had not entered the railway track when
he was hit by the train.
2026:KER:5272
12. Upshot of the above discussion is that the accident
was an untoward incident and the deceased was a bonafide
passenger. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for
compensation. The respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.8
lakhs as compensation to the appellants. The respondent shall
also pay interest at the rate of 6% from the date of accident.
The amounts due under this judgment shall be paid to the
appellants within two months.
Appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2026:KER:5272
APPENDIX OF MFA (RCT) NO. 4 OF 2024
APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.A (IIU) / ERS
/17/2020 DATED 14.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
BENCH
Annexure A-2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.A
(IIU) / ERS /17/2020 DATED 14.11.2023
ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
