U.Krishith Begam vs The Union Of India Owning
2021 Latest Caselaw 8967 Mad

                                                                                C.M.A.No.714 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   Dated: 01.04.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                    THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                                C.M.A.No.714 of 2017


                   U.Krishith Begam                                             .. Appellant

                                                           Vs.

                   The Union of India Owning,
                   Southern Railway,
                   Rep. by its General Manager,
                   Chennai-600 003.                                             .. Respondent



                   PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23(1) of the
                   Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, appeal against the judgment dated
                   19.06.2015 made in O.A.(II-U) No.38 of 2014 passed by the Railway Claims
                   Tribunal, Chennai Bench.



                                         For Appellants     : Mr.M.Selvam

                                         For Respondent     : Mr.M.Vijayanand




                                                           1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                   C.M.A.No.714 of 2017

                                                   JUDGMENT

Appellant herein is the petitioner in O.A.(II-U) No.38 of 2014

filed by her before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, she is the

widowed mother, who claimed compensation for the fatal death of her son

'Zahir Hussuin', who died while he was travelling in the train due to an

accidental fall between Chennai Central and Arakkonam Railway stations and

suffered fatal injuries and died on 03.12.2013.

2. The Railway Authority contested the case.

3. After full trial, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition,

concluding that the accident was not proved by the legal heir of the deceased

that on that day the deceased was a bona fide passenger, travelled in the

train, fell down and met with an accident and sustained fatal injuries.

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. The Railway Authorities appeared and contested the

appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.714 of 2017

5. The question of law that arise for for consideration is as

to,

“whether the Railway Tribunal was right in finding that

the appellant is not entitled for compensation as she failed to

prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and failed

to appreciate the fact that the victim died due to the untoward

incident while he was travelling in the train on that day?”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that with

the help of FIR, death certificate, Final report and inquest report, the claim

was established that her son died due to the accidentally fallen down from the

train on 03.12.2013 at Perambur Railway Station, plat form No.2. But the

Tribunal has not appreciated these documents and erroneously concluded that

the appellant has not proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on

that day.

7. Before the Tribunal, to prove her claim on the side of the

appellant, she was examined as A.W.1. and Exh.A-1 to Exh.A-6 were

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.714 of 2017

marked. On the side of the Railway, a mandatory investigation Report of the

Divisional Railway Manager / Chennai Division dated 30.12.2014 was

marked.

8. On considering all these evidence, the Tribunal while

dismissing the application stated that the appellant has not proved that the

deceased was a bona fide passenger on that day. But as per the Inquest report

the reason for the death was stated as follows:

“ while the deceased was travelling in train from Chennai Central towards Arakkonam had accidently fallen down from the running train near Perambur Railway station, thereby sustained grievous injury on the left side of the head, as he being alive, some public arranged 108 Ambulance, admitted him in Zero cleley ward at Govt. Stanly Hospital. Being in treatment, he died on 04.12.2013 at 04.30 hrs without responding to medical treatment”.

9. The reason stated by Panchayadars for the cause of the

death stated as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.714 of 2017

(i)“ From the opinion of the Panchayadars, individually and unanimously opinioned that on 03.12.2013 at 08.55 hrs, while the deceased was travelling in train from Chennai Central towards Arakkonam he had accidentaly fallen down from the running train near Perambur Railway Station, thereby sustained grievous injury on the left side of the head, being alive, some public arranged 108 Ambulance admitted him in Zerl Cleley Ward at Govt. Stanley Hospital. Being in treatment, he died on 04.12.2013 at 04.30hrs, without responding medical treatment.”

(ii). Under what circumstances and situation the person was

deceased.

“ while the deceased was travelling in train from Chennai Central towards Arakkonam had accidently fallen down from the running train near Perambur Railway Station and involved in accident”.

10. The above referred documents on the side of the appellant/

claimant clearly established that the deceased died due to the injuries

sustained by accidental fall from the train.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.714 of 2017

11. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the Railway

Authority submitted that the case of the appellant is that while attempting to

board the moving train the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down

and the incident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased.

The burden is on the respondent to prove this fact, but, except the DRM

report no other independent witness was examined to prove that the accident

happened due to the own negligence act of the victim.

12. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

appellant, that the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that prima facie has

been made out and proved that the victim died due to accidental fall from the

running train. But the Tribunal concluded that the appellant has not proved

that the deceased had possessed valid ticket at the time of the said accident,

thereby concluding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

13. The ratio laid down in, a Division Bench of this court in

the case of The Union of India Owning Southern Railway Vs.

G.Jayalakshmi and others, reported in 2012(3) CTC 741, held as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.714 of 2017

Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 123(c) & 124-A

- “Untoward incident” - Claimant's deceased husband fallen down from train due to overcrowding and died – Deceased lost ticket during accident – Contention of Railways that incident happened due to negligence on part of deceased and claimant has failed to prove that deceased was travelling with valid ticket – Held: Normal presumption is that passenger in Train holds valid ticket – Burden is on Railways to prove that deceased is not bona fide passenger – Accidental fallinig of passengers from Train carrying passengers would come within purview of “Untoward incident” and Claimants entitled to claim compensation.”

This decision squarely apply to the facts of this case.

14. It is impossible to recover the Railway ticket from the

body of the deceased or from the accident place. Even, if the person carries

ticket that cannot be recovered from the body of the deceased due to lot of

change of circumstances before recover the body from the public. Moreover,

the Railway Authorities are foremost persons to recover the body. But the fact

and circumstances proved that the deceased travelled at the time of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.714 of 2017

accident and the Railway also not established that by his own negligence or

with an attempt of self inflicted injuries, the victim died. But the claimants

proved that the death occurred due to the accidental fallen from the train,

thereby, claimant is entitled for the compensation under Section 124(A). But

the Tribunal without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence as well

as the facts and circumstances, erroneously dismissed the claim of the

appellant. Hence the findings given by the Tribunal is set aside.

15. The initial onus on appellant is proved. On the other hand

the Railway Authorities has not established that the victim died due to his

own negligence. So the order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the Railway Claims

Tribunal in O.A.(II-U) No.38 of 2014 is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal stands allowed. The appellant is entitled for a total compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of

petition.

16. But as per the legal heir certificate widowed mother alone

is mentioned as a legal heir of the deceased. Before disbursing the

compensation the authorities are directed to enquire about whether the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.714 of 2017

deceased having wife, children, thereafter compensation amount is to be

distributed equally to the available legal heirs on verification.

(i) So the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs

Only) is to be equally awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased after due

enquiry.

17. The respondent / Railways is directed to deposit the

compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with

the accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum before the Railway Tribunal

concerned within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. No costs.

01.04.2021 rri Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.714 of 2017

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

rri

C.M.A.No.714 of 2017

01.04.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/