Madras High Court
The Union Of India Owning vs R.Vijaya on 17 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2633 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 17.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.2633 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
The Union of India Owning,
Southern Railway,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Park Town, Madras-600 003. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Vijaya
2.Ramya
3.Rubuni
4.Kumaran
5.B.Kathirvel .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987, praying to call for the entire records
and set aside the final order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench
dated 06.06.2014 in O.A.(II-U) No.239 of 2013.
For Appellant : M/s.T.P.Savitha
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sekaran
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2633 of 2014
JUDGMENT
Appellant herein is the respondent in O.A.(II-U) No.239 of 2013
filed by the respondents / applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Madras Bench, who claiming compensation for the fatal death of deceased
'K.Paranthaman', while he was travelled in the train accidentally fallen down
and died on 24.12.2012.
2. The Railway Authority also contested the case.
3. After full trial, the Tribunal not accepted the defence taken by
the railway and decreed Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation in favour of the
respondents / petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the railway preferred this
appeal before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant / respondent contested that
the deceased 'K.Paranthaman', while he was travelling in the train on
29.12.2012 from Arakkonam to Park railway station he was standing at open
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2633 of 2014
doors of compartment of running train and due to his own volition he was
fell down and the death was occurred. So they are not obliged to pay the
compensation as under Section 124-A(b) of the Railway Act, and the fact also
established by the Railway Authority through their report. But without
appreciating the facts and evidence, the Tribunal erroneously awarded
compensation in favour of these respondents, who are the legal heirs of the
deceased 'K.Paranthaman'. So he prayed to allow the appeal.
5. But the respondents totally denied that the deceased had
travelled near the doorways of the running train and fell down as alleged by
the Railway Authorities. He also submitted that the deceased was doing a
flower merchant and used to travel by train from Arakkonam to various
places. While so, on 29.12.2012 in the evening the respondents came to know
that the deceased while travelling in the train towards Arakkonam, due to
over crowd, speed and jerk of the train, had accidentally fallen down from the
running train near Park Railway Station, sustained fatal injuries, died on the
way to hospital. The travel and fallen down from the train was admitted by
the Railway Authority, but they have not proved through any other material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2633 of 2014
evidence before the Tribunal that the deceased was standing near the door of
the compartment and also on his own volition he fell down from the train.
6. Before the Tribunal, to prove their claim on the side of the
respondents / applicants A.W.1 was examined and Exh.A-1 to Exh.A-6 were
marked and on the side of the Railway, the Report of the Divisional Railway
Manager / Chennai Division is marked.
7. On the other hand, the respondents proved the facts of the case
about the death occurred to the deceased, while he was travelling in the train,
through their evidence of A.W.1 and Exh.A-1 to Exh.A-6. The Tribunal
rightly appreciated the evidence and facts, awarded the claim. So they prayed
to dismiss the appeal as no merits.
8. On perusal of the records, it reveals that there is no independent
evidence on the side of the Railway Authority that the deceased was standing
on the door side and accidentally fell down from the train by its own
negligence. But they relied the Final report marked as Exh.A.6. It was stated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2633 of 2014
as follows:
“Mz; taJ 45 kjpf;fj;jf;fth; 29/12/2012 Mk; njjp
17/10 kzpf;F tz;o vz;/7651?y; gazk; bra;J bfhz;L ,Ue;jth;
Tl;l behprypy; jtwp tpGe;J jz;lthsg;ghijapy; tpGe;J ,lJ if
Kl;of;F fPH; Jz;of;fg;gl;Lk;. tyJ if Kwpe;Jk; ,lJ fz; mUfpy;
kw;Wk; bjhilapy; rpuha;gg; [fSk; Vw;gl;L mjpfg;goahd uj;jk;
btspnawp capUld; ,Ue;j tiu rpfpr;irf;fhf muR bghJ
kUj;Jtkid brd;id?3f;F bfhz;L bry;Yk; tHpapy; ,we;Js;shh;
vd jdpj;jdpahft[k;. Vnfhgpj;Jk; mgpg;gpuhak; bjhptpjj; dh;/
tprhuiz mjpfhhpahfpa ehDk; mnj Kot[fF
; te;njd;/ nkw;go
gpnujj;ij gpnuj ghpnrhid bra;j Dr.C.Mde;jp jdJ rhd;wpjHpy;.
“The deceased would appear to have died of shock and
Haemorhages due to Multiple injuries” bjhptpj;Js;shh;/”
9. It clearly support the case of the respondents and not support the
defence taken by the Railway Authority. Due to heavy crowd in the train he
accidentally fell in the track and sustained fatal injuries as per the report of
the Railway Authority. So the Railway Authority has not proved that due to
his own negligence, the accident was happened. The following authorities
relied on,
(i) “Jameela and others v. Union of India reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2633 of 2014
AIR 2020 SC 3705, held that the fact that he was standing at
open doors of compartment of running train may be negligent
act or even rash act, but it is certainly not criminal act and
negligence of passenger does not have effect on liability of
railways.”
(ii) Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar
and others” reported in (2008) 4 MLJ 323 (SC)” held that
Section 124 lays down strict liability or no fault liability in
case of railway accidents and if a case comes within the
purview of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was
at fault.” are also squarely applicable to the facts of the case.
10. Based upon all the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal rightly
awarded the compensation in favour of the respondents herein. But the
Railway Authority has not proved that the deceased was died due to his own
negligence. Hence the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras
Bench is confirmed. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. Hence, the appellant is directed to deposit the award amount, if not
already deposited, from the date of accident till the deposit of amount at the
rate of 9 % within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of the judgment. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2633 of 2014
is closed.
17.02.2021
rri
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
rri
C.M.A.No.2633 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2633 of 2014
17.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
