Union Of India Owning vs Kulandaivel Nadar
2021 Latest Caselaw 21016 Mad

                                                                                C.M.A.No.3181 of 2009

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 21.10.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                                  C.M.A. No. 3181 of 2009

                     Union of India owning
                     Southern Railway,
                     Represented by
                     its General Manager,
                     Chennai – 600 003.
                                                                                         ... Appellant
                                                             Vs
                     1. Kulandaivel Nadar.
                     2. Kamalammal                                                     ... Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway
                     Claims Tribunal Act, to set aside the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal,
                     Chennai Bench, dated 02.07.2003 made in O.A. No. 53 of 2001.


                                      For Appellant               : Mr. M.T. Arunan
                                      For Respondent 2            : Mr. T. Rajamohan




                     1/8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                            C.M.A.No.3181 of 2009




                                                    JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the Union of India, Chennai,

challenging the order dated 02.07.2003 passed by the Railway Claims

Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A. No. 53 of 2001 under Section 16 of the

Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

2. Under the impugned order, the Appellant has been directed

to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to each

of the respondents/claimants for the death of their son, K. Gnanaraj, who

died in an untoward incident that took place on 11.08.2001 while he was

travelling in a Train No.6010 and due to a fall from the said train at

Tiruvellore Railway Station in Platform No.4 at 22.45 hours, he sustained

injuries and thereafter, due to the said injuries, he died at the Government

General Hospital, Chennai on 14.08.2001.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3181 of 2009

3. The respondents/claimants made a claim before the Railways

Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A. No. 53 of 2001 seeking

compensation and under the impugned award, the aforesaid compensation

was directed to be paid by the Appellant to the respondents who are the

parents of the deceased.

4. According to the Appellant, the Tribunal erred in allowing

the application filed by the respondents as according to them, since the

deceased attempted to get down from a moving train which resulted in the

accident, they are not liable to pay any compensation. It is their contention

that only due to the fault of the deceased, the accident had happened and

therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant drew the attention of

this Court to the various exhibits filed along with the claim application and

also drew the attention of this Court to the reply filed by the Appellant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3181 of 2009

before the Railways Claims Tribunal and would submit that the accident

happened only due to the fault of the deceased. Further it is his contention

that the ticket purchased by the deceased for travelling in the train was not

produced by the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal and therefore

they have not discharged their initial burden of proving their claim.

6. However, the learned counsel for the respondents after

drawing attention of this Court to the impugned order would submit that the

Appellant in the reply statement have admitted that the deceased had infact

travelled in the train on the date of the accident and therefore, the

respondents have discharged their initial burden of proving their claim.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents also drew the

attention of the Court to the various authorities relied upon by the

respondents/claimants before the Tribunal which is reflected in the

impugned order and would submit that the respondents/claimants have

discharged their initial burden. He also drew the attention of this Court to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3181 of 2009

the deposition of an eye-witness to the incident. According to him, as seen

from his deposition, the eye witness who was also travelling along with the

deceased has categorically confirmed that the deceased fell down from the

train on the date of the incident which resulted in him sustaining grievous

injuries. The inquest report was also relied upon by the learned counsel for

the respondents which indicates that the deceased died only due to the fall

from the train on the date of the incident.

8. This Court has perused and examined the impugned order.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the

respondents have discharged their initial burden of proving that the

deceased was infact travelling in the Train No.6010 on 11.08.2001. In the

reply statement also, the Appellant has admitted that the deceased was

travelling in the train bearing No. 6010 on 11.08.2001 and he fall down

from the train at Tiruvellore Railway Station. However, it is their contention

that the entire fault was on the part of the deceased as he attempted to get

down from a moving train. No contra evidence has been produced by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3181 of 2009

Appellant to prove that the deceased was getting down from the moving

train. When there is no contra evidence in support of the Appellant's

contention, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly

rejected the said contention under the impugned order. The

respondents/claimants having discharged their initial burden of proving that

the deceased was infact travelling in the train on the date of the incident and

it was an accidental fall, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of

the Appellant under the impugned order.

9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.

10. It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondents

that during the pendency of this appeal, the first respondent who is the

father of the deceased, died on 21.09.2010 and the death certificate has also

been produced before this Court. It is recorded. Since the second respondent

who is the mother of the deceased is the only surviving legal heir, she is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3181 of 2009

permitted to withdraw the entire award amount as determined under the

impugned order.

11. The Appellant is directed to deposit the compensation

amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as determined under the impugned order together

with interest from the date of clam till the date of deposit and costs, after

deducting the amount already deposited if any, to the credit of O.A.No.53 of

2001 on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai, within a period

of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such

deposit being made, the second respondent is directed to withdraw the

amount lying to the credit of O.A.No.53 of 2001 on the file of the Railways

Claims Tribunal, Chennai by filing an appropriate application before the

Tribunal.

21.10.2021 Index:Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No rgi/nl

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3181 of 2009

ABDUL QUDDHOSE.,J rgi

To

1. Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras - 104.

C.M.A. No. 3181 of 2009

21.10.2021

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