P.Valliammal vs The Union Of India Owning
2021 Latest Caselaw 4503 Mad

                                                                                 C.M.A.No.3290 of 2017


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 22.02.2021

                                                      CORAM

                             THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                              C.M.A.No.3290 of 2017

                      1.P.Valliammal
                      2.Utchimahali                                               ..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 Railway
                      Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987 praying to set aside the order dated
                      14.07.2017, passed in O.A. (II-U).No.101 of 2016 on the file of Railway
                      Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.


                                  For Appellants      : M/s.T.Raja Mohan

                                  For Respondent     : M/s.T.P.Savitha


                                                   JUDGMENT

The order dated 14.07.2017 passed in O.A.(II-U).No.101 of 2016

is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.3290 of 2017

2. The claimants are the appellants. The claim petition is filed

under Section 16 of the Railways Act with reference to the facts narrated

in the claim petition which reads as under:

“The deceased was a resident of Tirunelveli. On 07.09.2015 in

the morning, the deceased reached his sister's house at Trichy. On the

same day in the night, along with his sister and her son & daughter in

law, he left for Chennai by Pandian Express. The applicants came to

know from the co-passenger and Virudhachalam Railway Police that

on 08.09.2015 at about 02.20 AM the deceased, while traveling in a

general compartment of Pandian Express train, due to heavy rush,

speed and jerk of the train, accidentally fell down from the running

train between Ulundurpet and Parikkal Railway Stations, suffered

grievous head injury with bleeding through ears and aberrations on

forehead. The train was stopped by chain pulling and the deceased

found dead lying amid bushes at the place of occurrence. It was an

untoward incident. The second class ticket purchased by the deceased

for his travel from Trichy to Chennai Beach was said to have lost at

the time of accident.”

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.3290 of 2017

3. The respondent/railways contested the case and the appellants

could able to establish that the deceased was a passenger and while he

was traveling in the train fallen down from a running train and sustained

grevious injuries and died. The F.I.R as well as the inquest report also

enumerates the said accident. The DRM report reveals that

Smt.N.Nallatchi, who is none other than the sister of the deceased had

made a statement that her brother Pitchaiya was an addict of liquor

adding that even before boarding the train he consumed liquor of

Rs.100/-. Despite her advice Pitchaiya did not refrain from consuming

liquor. The sister of the deceased Smt. N.Nallatchi, was also traveling

along with the deceased. Thus, her statement cannot be disbelieved. The

Tribunal further considered the statement of the said Smt.N.Nallatchi

and in clear terms she expressed that she was traveling along with her

deceased brother and the brother consumed alcohol and was sitting

nearby the door of a running train. When the fact regarding consumption

of liquor was established, the Tribunal by invoking the Exclusion Clause

under Section 124-A under the Railways Act dismissed the application.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.3290 of 2017

Section 124-A (d) contemplates "any act committed by him in a

state of intoxication or insanity;”

4. In the present case, when the co-passenger who is the sister of

the deceased herself deposed that the deceased consumed liquor before

boarding the train, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the

witness. This Court is of an opinion that the appellants are not entitled

for compensation, in view of the Exclusion Clause as stated above. The

Tribunal also based on the said statement rejected the application.

5. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity as such.

Accordingly, the order dated 14.07.2017 passed in O.A.(II-U) No.101 of

2016 stands confirmed. Consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.

3290 of 2017 stands dismissed. No costs.

22.02.2021

Pns

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

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.3290 of 2017

To

1.General Manager, The Union of India owning, Southern Central Railway, Chennai – 600 003.

2.Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.3290 of 2017

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Pns

C.M.A.No.3290 of 2017

22.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in