The Union Of India Owning vs A.M.Kothandaraman
2023 Latest Caselaw 10310 Mad

                                                                                    C.M.A.No.1491 of 2022
                                                                               and C.M.P.No.11038 of 2022

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 14.08.2023

                                                          CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                                    C.M.A. No. 1491 of 2022
                                                  and C.M.P.No.11038 of 2022

                     The Union of India owning,
                     Southern Central Railway,
                     Rep. by its General Manager,
                     Chennai – 600 003.                                        ... Appellant

                                                           Versus

                     A.M.Kothandaraman                                         ... Respondent

                     PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23(1) of the
                     Railways Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987, seeking to set aside the order
                     dated 01.11.2019 made in RES/MAS/02/2019 in C.M.P.No.12 of 2005
                     on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
                                  For Appellant           : Mr.T.P.Savitha

                                  For Respondent          : Mr.M.Sai Durga

                                                          JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Railway challenging

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in RES/MAS/02/2019 in

C.M.P.No.12 of 2005 dated 01.11.2019.

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

C.M.A.No.1491 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.11038 of 2022

2.The claim petition was filed stating that on 10.02.2000, the

respondent was travelling in train from Kodambakkam to Vandalur.

While the train was nearing St.Thomas Mount railway station, the

respondent was hit by an electric pole and accidentally fell down from

the moving train and became unconscious. He regained conscious only

after three weeks. Due to the said accident, the respondent sustained head

injury as that he was entitled for compensation.

3.The appellant/Railway filed a counter denying all the averments

made in the claim petition along with DRM (injury) report dated

31.07.2019 and stated that no such incident was reported in St.Thomas

railway station and no FIR was filed by the respondent in this regard.

4.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary

evidence held that the injuries sustained by the victim were on account of

untoward incident, under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989

and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation

to the respondent without ordering any interest.

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

C.M.A.No.1491 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.11038 of 2022

5.Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Railway had preferred

the instant appeal challenging the findings of the Tribunal.

6.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim

petition itself was filed with delay of 1547 days. The Tribunal had

dismissed the petition filed to condone the delay in filing the claim

petition. The respondent challenged the said dismissal order before this

Court in C.M.A.No.1989 of 2007. This Court by order dated 11.09.2018

had allowed the said CMA and directed the Tribunal to consider the

matter on merits and also held that the respondent is not entitled to the

interest for the delay period in the event of Tribunal awarding

compensation.

6(a).Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal

erroneously found that the respondent had sustained injuries on account

of untoward incident, though, the respondent had not proved that he

suffered injuries due to the travel in the train and he had purchased a

ticket for travel. The learned counsel hence submitted that the respondent

is not a bonafide passenger.

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

C.M.A.No.1491 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.11038 of 2022

7.Learned counsel for the respondent per contra submitted that the

Tribunal had awarded compensation on the basis of DRM report filed on

the side of the appellant. The DRM report states that since the train was

crowded, the respondent's head hit on an electric pole and he fell down

on the platform while the train was nearing the station named St.Thomas

Mount. The Tribunal also rightly found that the respondent suffered

transient loss of memory due to the head injury and therefore his version

that he had lost journey ticket is probable. Thus, the appeal has no merits

and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8.Though the claim petition has been filed belatedly, the fact that

the accident took place is established from the DRM report. The Tribunal

in its order had extracted DRM report in Paragraph No.10, which states

as follows:

“10.DRM report admitted that due to the crowd, and while the train was nearing STM station, his head hit on an electric pole and then fell down on the PF while the train was entering STM station in which he sustained severe head injury.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1491 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.11038 of 2022

9.The appellant is unable to produce any evidence to the contrary.

In such circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent

sustained injuries on account of the untoward incident cannot be faulted.

It is seen that the respondent had established that he suffered transient

loss of memory with loss of consciousness. It is trite that mere absence of

ticket by itself would not be a ground to negate the claim if it is shown

that the passenger was a bonafide passenger. The respondent suffered

head injury and was admitted in the hospital and he regained conscious

only after three weeks. The respondent had established the probable

cause for the loss of the ticket. In such circumstance, this Court is of the

view that absence of ticket would not lead to the inference that he was

not a bonafide passenger. For the above reason, the order passed by the

Tribunal does not call for any interference and the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

10.In view of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.

The appellant/Railways is directed to deposit the entire compensation

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

C.M.A.No.1491 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.11038 of 2022

awarded by the Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any,

within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of

this Judgment. On such deposit the respondent is permitted to withdraw

the entire award amount, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

14.08.2023 rst

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No

To:

1.The Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

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

C.M.A.No.1491 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.11038 of 2022

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

C.M.A.No.1491 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.11038 of 2022

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

rst

C.M.A. No. 1491 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.11038 of 2022

14.08.2023

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