B.Kalaivani vs The Union Of India Owning
2021 Latest Caselaw 4415 Mad

                                                                             C.M.A.No.2451 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 19.02.2021

                                                       CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                C.M.A.No.2451 of 2017

                     1.B.Kalaivani
                     2.B.Madurai Muthu
                     3.B.Deepha
                     4.B.Ramsankar                                              ..Appellants

                                                         Vs.

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

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the
                     Railway Claims Tribunal, against the judgment dated 16.12.2015 and
                     made in O.A.(II-U) 296/2014 on the file of the Railway Tribunal,
                     Chennai Bench.

                                      For Appellants   : Mr.M.Selvam

                                      For Respondent   : Mr.M.Vijay Anand

                                                   JUDGMENT

The judgment dated 16.12.2015 passed in O.A.(II-U) 296/2014 is

under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

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

C.M.A.No.2451 of 2017

2. The Claim Petition is filed by the appellants on the ground that

on 21.01.2013 prior to 20.30 hrs, while the deceased was travelling in a

train towards Gumedipoondi had accidentally fallen down from the

running train into the pond under the Railway Bridge between Ponneri

and Kavarapet Railway Stations at Km 34/12-14 at down slow line and

due to Aspiration died at the place of accident.

3. The Claim Petition was filed seeking compensation. The

Railway Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents

and evidences produced by the parties. The Inquest Report reveals that

the deceased fell down from the Bridge on seeing the train coming from

the other side. Therefore, the accident was no way connected with the

train and the deceased fell down from the bridge in between Ponneri and

Kavarapet Railway Station.

4. The Final Report also reveals that the deceased fell down from

the Railway Bridge. Considering the documents, the Tribunal arrived a

conclusion that the accident is not falling under the 'Untoward incident'

as contemplated under the Railways Act and therefore, they are not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.2451 of 2017

entitled for compensation. The findings of the Tribunal reveals that the

deceased was residing nearyby Ponneri and more specifically, the

incident also occurred very nearer to the residential house of the

deceased.

5. The Divisional Railway Manager [DRM] Report stated that the

area, where such incident took place that is nearby LC 25/PON, which is

used by the local people and people cross the track quite often. As per

the statement made by the applicant in the enquiry, it was categorically

stated that father and son, while returning back to home after purchased

rations through the Railway Track accidentally fallen down. The Post

Mortem report reveals that both father and son died because of Asphyxia

Aspiration and not because of hit or fallen down from the train as

projected in the application. If the deceased were travelling towards

Gummidipoondi, the precise originating and destination station /

location ought to have detailed either in the OAs or through some other

means, which has not been done in the present case.

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

C.M.A.No.2451 of 2017

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

kak

6. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion

that the applicants have not established the accident within the

provisions of the Railways Act for grant of compensation. Thus, the

Railway Tribunal rightly rejected the application and this Court do not

find any infirmity or perversity as such and accordingly, the judgment

dated 16.12.2015 passed in O.A.(II-U) 296/2014 stands confirmed and

the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.2451 of 2017 is dismissed.

No costs.

19.02.2021

kak Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order

To

1. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench.

C.M.A.No.2451 of 2017 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/