Madras High Court
Menaka vs Union Of India Owning on 19 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2908 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.2908 of 2019
1.Menaka
2.Trisha (Minor)
3.Hari Perumal (Minor)
4.Dhanalakshmi
5.Sundaram ..Appellants
Vs.
Union of India Owning
Southern Railway Rep.by its
General Manager,
Chennai. ..Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 (1) Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, praying to set aside the order passed by the
Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. (II-U)0089 of 2016
dated 05.04.2017 and allow the C.M.A.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
For Respondent : Mr.C.V.Ramachandramurthy
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2908 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The order dated 05.04.2017 passed in O.A.(II-U) 0089 of 2016 is
under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2.The claimants are the appellants. The application under Section
16 of the Railways Act was filed by the appellants on the ground that on
15.07.2013 at about 11.30 a.m., the 1st applicant's husband Mr.Muthu
Azhagarsamy, while on his way to work he went to Ponneri Railway
Station and boarded to the EMU train for going to his work from
Ponneri to Sulurpettai. During the journey 1st Applicant's husband due to
over crowd and unexpected jerk of the train by reason fell down from
the train and met with an accident near KM 49/18-20 down line and
sustained grevious Head injury and also sustained grevious injuries all
over the body and died on the spot. Immediately he was taken to
Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai – 1, for post mortem.
3.The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the
documents and evidences filed by the respective parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2908 of 2019
4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
mainly contended that the Railway Claims Tribunal has not considered
the inquest report as well as the final report filed by the Police
Authorities after investigation. Contrarily, DRM report alone was relied
upon by the Tribunal and held that the appellants have not established
that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Thus, the Tribunal held that
the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the deceased was found
on track in two pieces and that the death of the deceased was due to
trespass and run over. In this regard, the post-mortem report noted that:
“extensive scalp contusion seen all over the skull with compound
comminuted fracture of vault and base of the skull with brain matter are
missing..... Contusion on both side of chest. Irregular complete fracture
of both side ribs 1-9 along the paravertibal line...” said findings find
support from conclusion in DRM report that it was a case of trespass
and run over.
5.This Court is of the considered opinion that the Railway
Authorities would not able to establish that it was a case of trespass. In
the reply statement itself respondent / railways has stated if the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2908 of 2019
had fallen down from the train, there would have been a chain pulling by
co-passengers, especially when a passenger falls down during the day
light. Therefore, the deceased had not died on account of falling down
from the running train.
6.Mere presumption would not be a ground to decline
compensation to the victim. In the event of raising any doubt by the
railways, the same must be established with some evidence. Merely
raising a doubt by drawing a factual inference may not be accepted for
the purpose of declining compensation. In the present case, the factum
regarding the accident was established. Undoubtedly, the ticket was not
retrieved. Mere non-possession of ticket is not a ground to deny
compensation. However, under these circumstances it is the bounded
duty of the railways to establish that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger.
7.In the present case, the Tribunal has not considered the final
report and rejected the application. The Tribunal fully considered the
presumption of the respondent / railways. When the factum regarding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2908 of 2019
the accident was established and when the travel ticket was not retrieved
by the Authorities, then the burden of proof is shifted on the railways to
establish that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. In the present
case, the Railway Authorities have stated that if at all there was a falling
down, the co-passengers would have pulled the chain and stopped the
train and such a presumption cannot be a ground to decline
compensation in view of the facts and circumstances that the Railway
Claims Tribunal proceeded only on certain doubts raised by the railways
which was not substantiated. This Court is not inclined to consider the
claim of the railways.
8. This being the facts and circumstances, the order dated
05.04.2017 passed in OA(II-U) 0089/2016 is set aside and the Civil
miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.2908 of 2019 stands allowed. The
appellants are entitled for a total sum of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight
Lakhs only) along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of passing of the award. The compensation is to be apportioned as
under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2908 of 2019
(i) The 1st appellant/wife is entitled for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only).
(ii) The appellants 2 and 3, who are minors, are
entitled for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each (Rupees One Lakh
Fifty Thousand only Each).
(iii) The appellants 4 and 5 / parents of the deceased
are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees One
Lakh only each)
9. 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 6% per annum before the Railway
Tribunal concerned within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the major claimants are
permitted to withdraw their respective portion of the award amount with
accrued interest by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal
and the payments are to be made through RTGS. As far as the minors
share of compensation is concerned, the same is to be deposited in any
one of the Nationalized Bank in an interest bearing deposit scheme and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2908 of 2019
the same is to be renewed periodically till the minors attained the age of
majority. No costs.
19.02.2021
Pns
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
To
Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2908 of 2019
Pns
C.M.A.No.2908 of 2019
19.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
