Madras High Court
M.Neelakandan vs The Union Of India Owning on 22 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
1.M.Neelakandan
2.Mrs.N.Selvi
3.Mrs.P.Kalaiselvi ..Appellants
Vs.
The Union of India owning
Southern Railways,
Rep.by its General Manager,
Chennai – 600 003. ..Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal, against the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA(II-U) 17/2017.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Raja Mohan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vijay Anand
JUDGMENT
The order dated 17.08.2017 passed in OA(II-U) 17/2017 is under
challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
2. The claimants are the appellants and the application under
Section 16 of the Railways Act was filed, seeking compensation based
on the untoward incidents as narrated in the application, which reads as
under:
“The deceased was a resident of Salaiyur Village
in Maduranthagam Taluk. He was a construction cooli
worker and stayed at Chennai in connection with his
cooli job. The applicants came to know from the
Chengalpet Railway Police that prior to 00.30 hrs of
07.02.2016 the deceased, while standing near the door to
get down from the general compartment of Tr.No.12631
Nellai Exp., at Melmaruvattur, due to push and pull by
the other passengers, accidentally fell down from the
running train at platform No.3 at Melmaruvattur Railway
Station, suffered grievous crush injury on both legs below
knee and right hand fractured and died at the place of
occurrence. It was an untoward incident. The II Class
ticket purchased by the deceased for his travel from
Chennai Egmore to Melmaruvatur was said to have lost
at the time of accident along with his belongings.”
3. The First Information Report as well as the Inquest Report
reveals that it was a case of fallen down from a running train. The Travel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
ticket was not retrieved. However, the Investigation conducted by the
Police reveals that the deceased died on account of fatal injuries and by
falling from a running train. The Divisional Railway Manager's [DRM]
Report dated 28.05.2017 also concludes that the deceased was not a
genuine passenger, who had fallen down from a running train No.12631
Ex.MS-TEN, while detraining from the train when the train was entering
on PF.3 @ MLMR Railway Station resulting in sustained injury and
died on the spot. The death caused due to his carelessness and self
inflicted one.
4. The question arises whether the negligence and carelessness
can be construed as a self-inflicted injury within the meaning of Section
124A of Railways Act. Undoubtedly, self-inflicted injury is a clause,
where the claimants are not entitled for compensation. However, mere
negligence or carelessness cannot be construed as self-inflicted injury.
For self-infliction, mens rea is required. In other words, an intention on
the part of the passenger is required to establish self-inflicted injuries. If
any untoward incident occurs due to carelessness or negligence, the
same cannot be converted as self-inflicted, so as to decline grant of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
compensation. Accidents are mostly happening on account of certain
carelessness or negligence. In the event of the refusal of compensation
merely on the ground of negligence and carelessness, then compensation
cannot be granted in any case. Every accident happens sometimes on
account of carelessness or due to negligence. In such circumstances, the
Courts are bound to adopt a pragmatic approach and more specifically,
the contributory negligence on the part of the other side is also to be
construed. Overcrowding in a running train are mostly due to issuance
of innumerable tickets without ascertaining the capacity of coaches,
more specifically, in Unreserved compartments. Railway Police as well
as the authorities competent, who all are to duty bound to control the
crowd in running trains, are also not efficient enough to implement the
Railway Rules. Undoubtedly, due to huge population and travellers, it
may not be possible for the authorities to control effectively. However,
when an accident occurs, the Railway authorities cannot simply say that
a passenger fell down due to his own negligence. One could able to
visualize that the passengers are travelling even by standing nearby the
doors in Express trains in Unreserved compartments. Large number of
crowd are travelling over and above the coach capacity. The Railway
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
authorities are simply witnessing the same and not initiating any steps to
control the crowd in coaches. Thus, it is to be construed as contributory
on the part of the Railways. When many passengers are allowed to stand
nearby the doors and the accident falls from a running train cannot be
attributed only against the passenger and such an untoward incident
happening on account of carelessness, cannot be construed as self-
inflicted. This being the possible interpretation and further, as far as the
welfare legislations are concerned, Courts are bound to interpret the
provisions liberally. Such exclusion clause on self-inflicted injury
cannot be applied as far as the cases of mere negligence or carelessness.
Only if the Railways are able to establish that the injury was inflicted
intentionally by the passenger, then alone, the Claim Petition can be
rejected and not otherwise.
5. In the present case, the DRM Report admits the fact that the
deceased died on the spot due to the fatal injuries sustained by fallen
down from a running train. Further, it was admitted that the deceased
was travelling in train No.12631 Ex.MS-TEN. The only findings of the
DRM in his report is that the death caused due to the carelessness and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
self-inflicted one, this Court is of an opinion that self-inflicted was not
established by the Railway authorities before the Tribunal also. The
Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the deceased was not possessing a
valid travel ticket and further, he was not holding a valid travel ticket
and therefore, the claimants have not established that the deceased was a
bonafide passenger.
6. As far as the Bonafide passenger is concerned, once the
untoward incident was established and the Railway authorities, more
specifically, DRM Report reveals that the deceased travelled in the train
and sustained injuries due to fallen down from a running train, then the
burden of proof is shifted on the Railways to establish that the deceased
was not a bonafide passenger.
7. In the present case, the respondent / Railways could not able to
establish that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. This being the
factum, the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting an application
merely on the ground that the deceased was not holding a valid travel
ticket and he was not a bonafide passenger. The onus lies on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
claimants at the first instance and they have established that there was an
untoward incident. The said untoward incident was admitted even in the
DRM Report. The Final Report by the Police also reveals that the death
occurred due to fatal injuries on account of falling down from a running
train. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the Railways to establish
that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. However, they failed to
discharge their burden and therefore, the benefit of doubt should go to
the claimants. This being the principles to be followed, the order dated
17.08.2017 passed in OA(II-U) 17/2017 is set aside.
8. The appellants / claimants are entitled for a compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with accrued interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of the award. The
compensation is to be apportioned as detailed hereunder:
(i) The wife/3rd appellant/Kalaiselvi is entitled for a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs only). The appellants 1 and 2/Parents
of the deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees
Two Lakhs Each).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017 stands allowed. 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 appellants / 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. No costs.
22.02.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
To
1. The Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chennai Bench.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.M.A.No.3253 of 2017
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
