R.Kumar vs The Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 6369 Mad

                                                                               C.M.A.No.4447 of 2019


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 10.03.2021

                                                            CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                 C.M.A.No.4447 of 2019


                     1.R.Kumar
                     2.K.Muthulakshmi                                                ..Appellants

                                                             Vs

                     The Union of India
                     Rep. by its General Manager,
                     Southern Railway, Chennai.                                      ..Respondent


                                   Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal

                     Act 54 of 1987 against the order dated 11.11.2019 passed in

                     O.A.No. 134 of 2018 by the Railway Claims Tribunal Chennai Bench.



                                       For Appellants   :         Mr.T.Rajamohan

                                       For Respondents :          Mr.M.Vijay Anand


                                                        JUDGMENT

The judgment dated 11.11.2019 passed in O.A.No.134 of

2018 is under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

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

C.M.A.No.4447 of 2019

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

with reference to the untoward incident as narrated in the

application, which reads as under:

"That on 08.08.2017 in the morning at about 08.00 hrs, the deceased informed his father and left for college. Along with his friend Narendran, the deceased travelled EMU train. The applicants came to know from the co-passenger and Perambur Railway Police that on 08.08.2017 the deceased and his friend while travelling in EMI train from Villivakkam Railway Station, prior to 09.10 hrs of 08.08.2017 when the train was proceeding near Korattur Railway Station, due to over crowd, speed and jerk of the train, the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train, suffered grievous head injury with aberrations all over the body. He was shifted by the 108 ambulance to K.M.C Govt. Hospital and thereafter for further treatment he was admitted in Rajiv Gandhi Govt. Hospital. However, not responding to the treatment, he died on 16.08.2017 at 09.50 hrs. It was an untoward incident. The II class journey ticket purchased by the deceased for his travel from Villivakkam Railway Station was said to have lost at the time of shifting him to the hospital."

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

C.M.A.No.4447 of 2019

3. The Tribunal proceeded with the trial based on the

evidences and document. The Tribunal found that the untoward

incident was not established as defined under the Railways Act and

further the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

untoward incident occurred on account of hit in a lamppost, the

deceased sustained grievous injuries on the date of the accident on

08.08.2017 and subsequently died on 16.08.2017. When the

untoward incident occurred due to a hit in a lamppost, it would not

be a ground to decline the compensation to the victim. Thus, the

Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the application.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Railways disputed the

said contentions by stating that the untoward incident itself was not

established beyond doubt. However, neither travel ticket was

produced nor retrieved from the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal is

right in rejecting the application and there is no infirmity.

6. Beyond the facts and circumstances considered by the

Tribunal, it is relevant to consider the DRM's report and in the

concluding paragraph, the report categorically states that on

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

C.M.A.No.4447 of 2019

08.08.2017 at about 8.30 hrs, the deceased along with his friend

Narendar were travelling by EMU train from VLK to AVD to attend

their college. When the train was running near KOTR Railway

station, the deceased who was travelling near the doorways of the

compartment, fell off from the running train after being hit by the

power post, in which he sustained grievous head injury and was

rushed to the Govt. KMC hospital through 108 Ambulance and then

referred to RGGGH, Chennai where he was admitted as inpatient

but died on 16.08.2017 at 09.50 hrs. Based on the complaint

lodged by Sri.Kumar, the father of the deceased, registered a case

in Cr.No.86 of 2017 under Section 174 Cr.PC on 08.08.2017. The

report concludes that the deceased had accidentally fallen down

from the train near Korattur Railway station while travelling in an

EMU train from VLK station towards AVD station. Further, the

incident was not reported to Railways. The RPF and Railway officials

were not aware of the incident happened on 08.08.2017.

7. The above portion of the DRMs report reveal that there is

discrepancy even in the registration of the complaint. The alleged

untoward incident occurred on 08.08.2017 but the father of the

deceased had given a complaint by stating that the deceased was

admitted as in-patient on 16.08.2017. When the father of the

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

C.M.A.No.4447 of 2019

deceased has stated that the deceased died on 16.08.2017, the

very complaint was registered on 08.08.2017 is improbable and

appears to be unbelievable. Thus, the very complaint registered,

cannot be trusted upon. In the subsequent sentence, the inquest

report reveals that the incident was not reported to the Railways.

The Railway officials were aware of the incident happened on

08.08.2017 when the father of the deceased has stated in his

complaint that the deceased died on account of untoward incident

occurred due to hit in a lamp post and 108 Ambulance came and he

was admitted. It is not possible that the Railway Authorities as well

as the railway police were not aware of the incident. If at all,

Ambulance came into the railway premises and the injured was

taken for treatment to the hospital, certainly, some officials or some

passenger would have informed the Station Master or to the

authority concerned and no such things are made available either in

the report or in the other documents. Thus, the very untoward

incident seems to be highly suspicious and the manner in which the

criminal complaint registered is also unbelievable. Under these

circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has

rightly arrived at a conclusion in rejecting the application and thus

there is no infirmity in the findings as such.

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

C.M.A.No.4447 of 2019

8. In view of the above, the order dated 11.10.2019 passed in

O.A.No. 134 of 2018 stands confirmed and the civil miscellaneous

appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

10.03.2021

Index: Yes ssm

To

1.The Presiding Officer, Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

2.The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai.

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

C.M.A.No.4447 of 2019

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

(ssm)

C.M.A.No. 4447 of 2019

10.03.2021

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