Madras High Court
Veeralakshmi vs Union Of India Owning on 29 March, 2022
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
1.Veeralakshmi
2.Prabhakaran
3.Alaya Priya (Minor)
4.Sharumathi (Minor)
3rd and 4th appellants are Minors
Rep. by their mother and natural guardian
Veeralakshmi the 1st Appellant. ... Appellants
Vs
Union of India Owning
Southern Railway,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 (1) of
Railway Tribunal Act against the order passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. (II - U) No.188/2018 dated 18.07.2019.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vijay Anand
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The legal heirs of the deceased Muniyasami have filed an
application claiming compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal,
for the death of the said Muniyasami in a Railway accident.
2. It is the case of the applicants that Muniyasami, on 30.04.2018
had left his home at Ramanathapuram to travel to Chennai. Therefore he
had come to Madurai, where he had met his friend. Thereafter, he has
purchased a ticket and boarded an express train at Madurai Railway
Station. While travelling, he had fallen off the running train between
Kallakudi Pazanganatham and Pullambadi Railway Station. As a result of
which he had sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The deceased
was 46 years aged and was a driver by avocation. The applicants had
therefore claimed compensation from the Railways.
3. In the application filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal (Procedure Rules 1989), the applicants had given a train ticket
number in column 7.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
4. The respondent Railways had filed a reply statement in which
they had contended that the body was found on 03.05.2018 at 08.40 hrs.
This information was received by the GRP/Vriddhachalam at 15.00 hrs.
The Inquest was conducted between 17.30 hrs and 19.30 hrs in the place,
where the body was recovered.
5. A man missing complaint has been lodged by one Prabakaran,
the son of the deceased, through his first wife, at about 09.00 hrs on
03.05.2018 at Kenikkarai Police Station. In turn, the Kenikkarai Police
Station had informed the family of the deceased about the discovery of
the body at around 15.00 hrs.
6. During the inquest, no valuables were recovered from the body
except for dress worn by him. The body was identified by the first
applicant and the son/ second applicant of the deceased at 06.00 hrs on
04.05.2018. At the time of the inquest, five panchayatars were present
who were residents of Valanthararai to which the applicants and the
deceased belonged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
7. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend
that a suspicion is raised with reference to the very inquest report itself
and the respondent would state that it could be a manufactured one to
show that the deceased had fallen down from the train. It appears that a
false FIR was also prepared, as if the complainant and the wife of the
deceased was present at 15.00 hrs on 03.05.2018 at the Railway Station.
The respondent would also submit that the ticket number which is
mentioned in the inquest report was never recovered from the body of the
deceased.
8. Further, the postmortem report would indicate that the deceased
would have passed away between 48-78 hrs prior to the postmortem. The
postmortem was conducted at 12.30 hrs on 04.05.2018. Therefore, as per
the postmortem report, death should have occurred between 12.30 hrs on
01.05.2018 and 12.30 hrs on 02.05.2018.
9. The journey ticket was purchased at Madurai at 16.43 hrs on
30.04.2018, which would indicate that the deceased would have travelled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
by train No.22628, which leaves Madurai at 17.10 hrs. The first
respondent wife had alleged that she had spoken to the deceased over
phone at 20.10 hrs. Therefore, if the deceased had fallen down, he would
have fallen down between 21.15 hrs and 21.30 hrs on 30.04.2018 as that
is the time, when the train passes the alleged place of accident.
Therefore, from the postmortem report it can be inferred that the death
may not have occurred on account of fall from the train, as the body was
found only on 03.05.2018 at 08.40 hrs and the postmortem report fixes
the time of death between 12.30 hrs on 01.05.2018 and 12.30 hrs on
02.05.2018.
10. The respondent would submit that the sequence of events
narrated as well as the report, both inquest report as well as the
postmortem report, would clearly establish that the accident had not
occurred in the manner in which it has been narrated by the applicants.
11. The first applicant, adduced evidence as A.W.1 and have
marked documents. The inquest report with the attachments has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
marked as Exs.R1 and R2 on the side of the respondent.
12. The Railway Claims Tribunal has come to a conclusion that
from a perusal of the evidence and documents, it gives an impression that
the incident itself is a fabricated one since the time as set out by the
applicants does not tally with the schedule of the train and further the
postmortem report would further confirm that the death could not have
occurred at the time as stated by the applicants. The Tribunal has set out
in detail the discrepancies in the applicants' case in detail.
13. Challenging this order, the applicants are before this Court.
14. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of
the applicants, would primarily base his entire arguments on the fact that
the ticket had been produced on the side of the applicants and once the
ticket is filed, it has to be presumed that he was a bona-fide passenger
and in case the Railways entertained a doubt about the genuineness of the
ticket, they ought to have let in contra evidence to disprove the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
document. This exercise has not been done by the Railways. Therefore, it
has to be concluded in no uncertain terms that the ticket was the ticket
under which the deceased Muniyasami had travelled from Madurai.
15. The learned counsel for the appellants would cite the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 (7) SCALE 274 in Union
of India (UOI) Vs. Rina Devi, where he would rely upon the observation
made in the judgment that a mere absence of the ticket will not negative
the claim that he is a bona-fide passenger. Initially the burden would be
on the claimant which when discharged passes on to the Railways and
the issue has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. He would further contend that this initial burden has been
discharged by the applicants by filing the ticket. He would rely upon a
judgment of this Court made in C.M.A.No.2122 of 2015, where one of
the argument's of the defence was that the non production of the train
ticket would not be fatal to the case of the claimants. The learned Judge
had relied upon Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act and Section 124 A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
which defines a passenger and thereafter relied on the judgment reported
in 2012 (3) CTC (Civil) 741 (The Union of India owning Southern
Railway by its General Manager, Chennai Vs. G.Jayalakshmi and
others, where this Court has held that the normal presumption is that the
victim would hold a valid ticket and therefore the onus is on the
Railways to disprove the same. The learned Judge has observed that it is
the duty of the Railway Authority to first give evidence that the deceased
or the injured did not have a valid ticket and if proof is given, the onus
shifts upon the claimants to prove that the deceased was a bona-fide
passenger. Therefore, he would submit that the burden placed on the
applicants had been discharged and the respondent Railways has failed to
disprove the same. He would also rely upon a judgment reported in
(2008) 4 MLJ 323 (SC) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the issue
for the consideration of the Court was the expression 'accidental falling
of a passenger from a train carrying passengers'.
17. Mr.M.Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent would contend that the ticket which has been produced by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
applicants appears to be suspicious for the following reasons:
The applicants, in their application, would submit that at
20.10 hrs the deceased had called his wife and informed her that he had
purchased a ticket for travelling from Madurai to Chennai, giving the
wife the ticket number. He would submit that it is rather strange that a
husband would inform the ticket number to his wife. The wife in her
cross examination had submitted that the information in the FIR,
mentioning the ticket number was not known to her. He would therefore
submit that the ticket has been procured later.
18. He would further submit that the call details of the deceased
mobile number for the period 29.04.2018 to 03.05.2018, which has been
produced as part of Ex.R2 does not show any call having been made to
the first applicant, Veeralakshmi and the last call on 30.04.2018 was at
18.40 hrs. On the contrary, it appears that on the said date viz.,
30.04.2018, two calls have been made within seconds of each other to
one Tilakavathi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
19. He would further submit that the postmortem report would
state that the death had occurred between 48-72 hours prior to the time
on which the postmortem had been conducted, which therefore times the
death on 01.05.2018 between 08.10 hrs and 09.10 hrs. As per the
schedule of the train in which the deceased is said to have travelled, it
would have crossed the spot where the body of the deceased was found at
midnight. He would submit that all these factors have been taken note of
by the Tribunal to disprove the case of the applicants.
20. He would state that even in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Rina
Devi stated supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that each case has
to be looked at as per the facts and circumstances of that case and it
cannot be a general rule that the minute, the accident has occurred in the
precincts of the Railway property, which includes the track that the
person was a bona-fide passenger. In the instant case, the respondents
have discharged the onus placed on them to prove that the deceased was
not a bona-fide passenger. When the body was initially found, it has been
clearly mentioned that no ticket was found. That being the case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
production of the ticket by the applicants without giving any details of
the source from which they had obtained the ticket would clearly show
that the document is a fabricated document and the deceased was not a
bona-fide passenger.
21. Heard the counsels on either side and perused the records of
the case.
22. That the body was found besides the Railway track is admitted.
The dispute is whether the deceased had travelled as a passenger by
taking a valid ticket and this is the issue that has to be considered in the
instant case. In order to analyse the above, reference has to be drawn to
certain documents and its contents. The "gpnuj tprhuiz mwpf;if"
which is a report pursuant to an inspection conducted in the presence of
panchayatars who had identified the body, would state that the
belongings which had been recovered from the body was his shirt, banian
and pants. They have not recovered a ticket from the body. That apart,
the body has been discovered three days after he had left his house i.e.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
on 03.05.2018.
23. The keyman, who had first seen the body had reported that the
body was in a decomposed state emanating foul smell and it was found
near the bushes abutting the Railway track. The keyman has further
stated that there has been a heavy bleeding and the body was found caked
with dry blood. If the ticket was recovered from the body then it should
also be covered in blood.
24. There is no explanation on the side of the claimants as to how
and who had given them the ticket, particularly when the initial report
clearly states that no item or valuable or a ticket had been recovered from
the body. Therefore, the respondent Railways have been able to rebut the
claim of the applicants that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger, who
had purchased the ticket and boarded the train. Once they have
discharged their onus, the factum of proving their case shifts back to the
Appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
25. The Tribunal in its order has set out in great detail, the
contradictions in the deposition of the first Applicant/ wife. The learned
Judge has stated that if credence is given to the ticket which has been
produced on the side of the applicants, the deceased, should have
travelled in train No.22628, which is the Trivandrum to Trichy express
left Madurai at 17.10 hrs. Thereafter, he should have boarded another
train from Trichy and the incident should have occurred in the midnight
of the same date or the early hours on 01.05.2018. However, the
postmortem report would fix the time of death between 12.30 hrs on
01.05.2018 and 12.30 hrs on 02.05.2018.
26. There is also a doubt, if the deceased had actually travelled in
the train and fallen to his death while he was travelling in the train. It is
an axiomatic principle of law that the Courts should not entertain a false
case. In the case on hand, there are two glaring false statements as well as
documents. These discrepancies are detailed herein below:
a) The journey ticket, which has been produced:- The
applicants have not been able to explain the source from which they had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
obtained the ticket, particularly, when the inquest report clearly states
that apart from the clothing, no other things of value had been retrieved
from the deceased. Further, if the ticket had been obtained from the body,
the body at the time of its discovery was already in a decomposed state.
b) The statement of the wife that when her husband had
called on 20.00 hrs on 30.04.2018, he had given her the details of his
ticket number appears false for the reason, that Ex.R2 call details does
not show that a call has been made to the first applicant or the first
applicant had called the deceased. Further in her deposition, she has
submitted that she has not given the details of the ticket number.
27. The conversation regarding the husband conveying the ticket
number, that too an unreserved ticket number, is clearly made for the
purpose of fortifying their case in the claim. Even in the case of a
reserved ticket, it is natural to only give details about the coach number
or the seat number, but, never would one give the details of the ticket
number which is about 8 to 9 numbers long. Therefore, taking into
consideration the judgment in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Rina Devi case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
stated supra, on the facts of the instant case, the applicants have not been
able to prove their case that the deceased is a bona-fide passenger. A
passenger has been defined in Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act, 1989
as follows:-
2 (29). "passenger" means a person
travelling with a valid pass or ticket;
28. The explanation to the section states that a passenger would
also include a person who holds a platform ticket. This definition is
available only in the case of accidents coming within the ambit of
Section 124 A. What is an "untoward incident" has been explained in
Section 124 A. In Section 124 A, there is reference to a person holding a
platform ticket. However, Section 2(29) does not talk of a person holding
a platform ticket. Therefore, a conjoint reading of Section 2 (29) and
Section 124 A with its explanation clearly provides that a passenger is
one holding a ticket. In the light of the discussion in the foregoing
paragraphs, it is to be held that the deceased Muniyasami did not possess
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
a valid ticket and will therefore not be entitled to compensation.
29. In the result, I see no reason to set aside the order passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is dismissed. No Costs.
29.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
To
1. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
P.T.ASHA, J.,
ab
C.M.A.No.3196 of 2019
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
