Madras High Court
The Union Of India Owning vs R.Vasanth Raj(Aged 15 Years) on 19 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2946 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.2946 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.
R.Vasanth Raj(aged 15 years)
Minor rep.by father and Guardian
A.Rajkumar,
No.9/5, Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Kidangal,
Tindivanam – 604 001. ..Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench, against judgment passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 01.07.2014 in
O.A.(II-U) 322 of 2013.
For Appellant : M/s.T.P.Savitha
For Respondent : Mr.T.RajaMohan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
C.M.A.No.2946 of 2014
JUDGMENT
The judgment dated 01.07.2014 passed in O.A.(II-U) 322 of 2013
is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The respondent filed an application seeking compensation
under Section 16 of the Railways Act on the ground that the applicant is
a resident of Kidangal in Tindivanam. After attending a marriage of a
relative at Chennai, the applicant along with his parents, in order to
return to Tindivanam, on 07.06.2013 travelled in Pondicherry passenger
train. When the said train was entering into platform at Tindivanam
Railway Station, the applicant moved towards the door and due to push
and pull by the other passengers, he accidentally slipped and fell into the
gap between the train and the platform, suffered crush injury causing
amputation of both legs below knee. Immediately, he was shifted on
07.06.2013 and treatment given at Government Hospital, Tindivanam.
However, next day i.e., on 08.06.2013, he was referred for further
treatment at Ramachandra Hospital at Porur near Chennai and thereafter,
on the same day, he was shifted and admitted as inpatient at Stanley
Medical College Hospital, Chennai – 1. He underwent amputation
surgery on 08.06.2013 and discharged after two months on 08.08.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2946 of 2014
The second class combined ticket purchased by father of the applicant,
was possessed by the applicant and the same was lost during the time
when the injured applicant was transported to hospital.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/Railways mainly contended that the Station Master provided
an information, stating that injured while trespassing the Railway Track
met with an accident. Therefore, the Award of the Railway Tribunal is
perverse.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that the Head
Constable one Mr.I.Abdulrajak also given a statement that the injured at
about 09.00 p.m by using his cell phone, carelessly crossed the Railway
Track and sustained injuries. In view of the fact that it is a clear case of
negligence and the injured in violation of the Railway Rules, crossed the
Railway Track, he is not entitled for compensation.
5. The Tribunal considered these aspects, more specifically, the
Tribunal arrived a conclusion that when the ground of “Tress Passed and
injured” is taken by the Railways mainly on the ground that the Head
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2946 of 2014
Constable, who was an eyewitnesses, given a statement that the injured
was carelessly crossing the Railway Track, the said Head Constable has
to be examined as a witness before the Railway Tribunal, enabling the
other party to cross examine.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent / claimant made a
submission that the statement from the Head Constable was obtained
after a lapse of one year and three months from the date of accident.
Therefore, the statement cannot be relied upon and further, the said
Head Constable was not examined before the Tribunal. This being the
factum, the Railway Tribunal has rightly rejected the ground raised by
the Railways and awarded compensation.
7. The Railway Tribunal made an observation that legal
presumption with regard to any of the exceptions under Section 124-A
cannot be drawn merely on taking a plea – rather the exception has to be
taken only on the basis of concrete evidence – either oral or
documentary and in the present case, the respondent has not produced
before the Tribunal Sri Abdul Rajak, HC/RPF/TMC on whose
statement, the respondent has come with the above theory and in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2946 of 2014
absence, the theory put forth by the respondent has to be rejected as not
proved. Such a finding is in consonance with the law and there is no
infirmity as such.
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that Section 123 of the
Railways Act defines “Untoward incident” and Sub Clause 2 enumerates
that “the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying
passengers is an untoward incident”.
9. In the present case, the contention of the Railways that it is a
self-conflicted injury, cannot be accepted. In view of the fact that the
accident itself was established and the contention of the Railways was
not proved by examining the Head Constable who had given a
statement, the accident cannot be construed as self-inflicted injury. The
Railway Tribunal elaborately considered all these issues and granted
compensation. This Court do not find any perversity and the grounds
raised deserve no merit consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2946 of 2014
10. Accordingly, the judgment dated 01.07.2014 passed in
O.A.(II-U) 322 of 2013 is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal in C.M.A.No.2946 of 2014 stands dismissed. If the amount
already deposited by the appellant / Railways along with the accrued
interest does not exceed the enhanced compensation amount of
Rs.8,00,000/-, the appellant / Railways is directed to deposit the balance
amount 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 respondent / claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire
amount by filing an appropriate application and the payments are to be
made through RTGS. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
19.02.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2946 of 2014
To
1. The Railway Claims Tribunal,
Madras Bench.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2946 of 2014
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.M.A.No.2946 of 2014
19.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
