Dhanasekari vs Union Of India Through
2021 Latest Caselaw 4353 Mad

                                                                            C.M.A.No.2676 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 19.02.2021

                                                          CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                    C.M.A.No.2676 of 2018

                     1.Dhanasekari

                     2.G.Sangeetha

                     3.G.Pradeep Kumar

                     4.N.Rani                                                        ..
                     Appellants
                                                             vs.

                     Union of India through
                     General Manager,
                     Southern Railway
                     Chennai.                                                 .. Respondent

                     PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of Railway
                     Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order dated 20.07.2018, passed in
                     O.A.(II)U.No.93 of 2018 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal,
                     Chennai Bench.


                                   For Appellants              : Mr.L.Rajasekar

                                   For Respondents             : Mr.C.Ramachandramurthy

                     1/7


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                C.M.A.No.2676 of 2018




                                                         ORDER

The judgment dated 20.07.2018, passed in O.A.(II)U.No.93 of 2018 is

under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The appellants are the claimants. The first appellant, who is the wife

of the deceased deposed before the tribunal that her husband accidentally

fallen down from the running train and sustained fatal injuries and died. The

application was filed by the appellants stating that the husband of the first

appellant was working as a Assistant in the contractor name “Orchind

Industrial Equipments” under the proprietor S.Baskaran. On 26.08.2017 at

8.00 hours, he met with a local train accident, while, he was travelling from

Vysarpadi to Perambur on his way to his work spot (ITC Hotel Grand

Chola) at Guindy. Invesitgations were conducted and the incident was

reported by the Station Master himself at Perambur at 7.45 hrs that a person

was found lying on the track at Km.5/6 on the down slow line near

Perambur Railway station.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2676 of 2018

3. The Railway Tribunal adjudicated the facts and circumstances and the

evidence made available. The Railway Tribunal could able to draw a factual

inference with reference to the incident occurred. This Court is bound to

consider whether the factual inference can be considered as a probability so

as to deny compensation to the claimants.

4. The Tribunal carefully considered the facts and circumstances and

made a finding and the findings of the Railway Tribunal which indicates that

“ the body was found on the slow down line. The location for the body itself

would lay the first ground of suspicion that he was travelling in the train.

Secondly even according to the wife of the deceased who was examined

before us today, she was informed about the death only by evening at 4 O'

clock. She would state that her husband had carried his identity card and

season ticket in his pocket. This in our view cannot be correct because when

the body had been seen at 7.45 hrs.in the morning at a place near the

residence of the applicant in Perambur, there could have been no delay in

contacting the family till 4 0' clock if the identity card was available with the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2676 of 2018

deceased. Indeed at the time of inquest, police has recorded that apart from

his wearing apparel there was no other document or moveable with him.

This would explain why a copy of the season ticket, which is produced now,

was itself not being carried by him to show that he was travelling in the

train. Thirdly, we have an unusual spectacle of a person working in a five

star hotel under a contractor seen in 'lungi' in the morning at 7.45 hrs while

allegedly going to work. The wife gave a strained explanation that he would

go to office wearing 'lungi' and change it by wearing plant in the place of

work. While such asequel of dressing may be possible, when we are

examining several circumstances whether he could have been travelling by

train, this would provide another inkling that he was in casual dress only

because he was not going to office. Fourthly, the nature of the injuries found

in the body were taken note of, by the Panchayats at the time of inquest and

they have stated that he could have been hit by some train. It would appear

even at the time of inquest that they did not have the whereabout of the

deceased and therefore, in column 18 A it is entered that in order to secure

information from the public about his address, a photograph was taken to be

put as an advertisement in a newspaper. If the inquest had been concluded at

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2676 of 2018

10.30 hrs., it will surely mean that there was no visible proof available to fix

the identity of the deceased. This means that the wife was not available at

the time of inquest and the claim by her that the identity card with the

deceased cannot be true. Fifthly, the nature of injuries we find on the

deceased as recorded in the post mortem would show that he had dark red

scalp contusion over the right front parietal region and other injuries on the

left parietal and occipital region. The brain matter had been diffused and

there was haemorrhage in the sub arachnoid region. All these only suggest

that he had been hit by some train and these injuries may not even be on

account of a fell”.

5. The findings of the Railway Tribunal is crystal clear with reference to

the inference drawn considering the injuries sustained as well as the

documents available. This Court do not find any infirmity or perversity as

the appellants could not able to establish that the deceased was a bonafide

passenger and the untoward incident occurred within the meaning of Section

123 of the Railways Act. In the absence of establishing an untoward incident

within the meaning of the provisions, the Tribunal cannot consider for grant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2676 of 2018

of compensation as the case falls under the exclusion clause contemplated

under Section 124 of the Railways Act. Thus, the judgment dated

20.07.2018, passed in O.A.(II)U.No.93 of 2018 stands confirmed and

consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

19.02.2021

ssb Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order

To The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2676 of 2018

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

ssb

C.M.A.No.2676 of 2018

19.02.2021

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