Madras High Court
Union Of India vs Karuppasamy on 24 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.393 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.393 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2590 of 2021
Union of India, owning
Southern Railway, rep.by
General Manager, Park Town
Chennai – 600 003. ..Appellant
Vs.
1.Karuppasamy
2.K.Balammal ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal, against the order of the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 20.06.2008 made in O.A.No.66 of 2006.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Vijay Anand
For Respondents : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
JUDGMENT
The order dated 20.06.2008 passed in O.A.No.66 of 2006 is under
challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.393 of 2021
2. The Southern Railway is the appellant. The appeal is filed
mainly on the ground that the respondent/claimant is not a bonafide
passenger. However, perusal of the documents reveals that the
respondent/claimant filed an application seeking compensation on the
ground that on 16.07.2003 at about 14.40 hrs, the deceased boarded an
EMU that went towards Beach Railway Station and accidentally fallen
down and sustained injuries on the back side of his head. He was carried
in the same EMU to Chennai Park Railway Station from where he was
carried stretcher bearers and the friends of the deceased Mr.Mahesh and
Mr.Thangaraj with Memo No.99/2003 issued by the Station Master,
Park Railway Station and admitted into the casualty ward of
Government General Hospital on that day at about 15.15 hrs, where the
duty doctor examined and declared him dead and entered in the
Accident Register that the deceased was brought dead.
3. The Claim application was filed. The appellant/Railway
disputed the application on the ground that the deceased was not a
bonafide passenger. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.393 of 2021
to the documents as well as the evidences available. Regarding Issue
No.1, the findings of the Tribunal reveals that three journey tickets
which the deceased had purchased on 16.07.2003 for self and two of his
friends at about 2.30 p.m and kept in the shirt pocket of the deceased
appears to have been lost in transit. This fact was reiterated ni the
affidavit filed by A.W.2. There was not much rebuttal by the respondent
on the pleadings at column No.7 of the application as well as the
evidence of A.W.2. Based on the said evidence, the Tribunal arrived a
conclusion that the deceased could be treated as bonafide passenger and
further, the other issues regarding legal heirs are also confirmed in
favour of the claimants and accordingly, the compensation was granted.
The accident was established and further, based on the available
document, the Railway Tribunal could able to arrive a conclusion that
the deceased was a bonafide passenger. The sequences narrated also
reveals that the untoward incident occurred in a moving train.
4. This being the factum established, this Court do not find any
infirmity or perversity as such in respect of the order passed and
accordingly, the order dated 20.06.2008 passed in O.A.No.66 of 2006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.393 of 2021
stands confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.393
of 2021 is dismissed. The respondents/claimants are permitted to
withdraw the award amount with accrued interest by filing an
appropriate application and the payments are to be made through RTGS.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.02.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/Non-Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.393 of 2021
To
1. The Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.393 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.M.A.No.393 of 2021
24.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
