Madras High Court
Union Of India vs B. Gokularaman on 30 August, 2023
C.M.A.No.2026 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.2026 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.19639 of 2023
Union of India
Rep., by its General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs
B. Gokularaman ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23(1) of Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the order dated 22.10.2021 made in
O.A.(II-u)/MAS/108/2019, on the file of Court of the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr. M. Vijay Anand
For Respondent : Mr. B. Thirumalai
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2026 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the
order passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in
O.A. (II-U)/MAS/108/2019.
2. The respondent had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal
stating that he sustained injuries during the travel in an EMU train from
Avadi to Annanur Railway Station; that the accident was an untoward
incident and hence, the appellant is liable to pay compensation.
2.1 The appellant resisted the claim petition stating that the
respondent travelled on the foot board of the train, as a result of which his
head hit against an electric pole; and that it is a self inflicted injury and
hence, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence held
that the respondent sustained injuries in an untoward incident and even
assuming that the respondent was negligent, it would not have a bearing as
regards the liability of the appellant to pay compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2026 of 2023
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
evidence discloses that the victim / respondent travelled in a foot board and
therefore, it would amount to self inflicted injury. However, the Tribunal
had not considered the said fact and had erroneously awarded
compensation.
4.2 Further, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the
judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No. 2501 of 2015 in support of his
submission that where the victim had travelled on a foot board and suffered
injuries, it would amount to self inflicted injuries. The learned counsel also
submitted that the Tribunal also erred in awarding the maximum
compensation of Rs.8 lakhs without any finding with regard to the nature of
injuries.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent per contra submitted
that even assuming that there was negligence on the side of the respondent,
it would not amount to gross negligence so as to call it self inflicted injuries.
The DRM report confirms the fact that the respondent had a valid ticket and
was a bonafide passenger.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2026 of 2023
6. The only question in the instant appeal is-
Whether the Tribunal was right in awarding
compensation to the respondent?
7. It is seen from the records that the DRM report states that on
03.10.2018 while the respondent was travelling on foot board on an EMU
train from Avadi to Villivakkam station, he fell down from a running train
after being hit against an electric pole. The respondent also had a valid
ticket which is confirmed in the DRM report. The question is whether in
the light of the admitted facts by the appellants, it can be said that the act
committed by the respondent would amount to causing self inflicted
injuries.
8. This Court is of the view that whether a particular negligent act
would amount to self inflicted injury or not, depends on facts and
circumstances of each case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others reported in (2008) 4 MLJ 323
(SC) and in Jameela and Others vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2010
SC 3705, had observed that even assuming that it was a case of gross
negligence, it would have no relevance in a claim petition under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2026 of 2023
Railways Act, which is a beneficial legislation. The Tribunal, on
appreciation of facts, held that in the facts it would not amount to self
inflicted injuries based on the aforesaid two judgments. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the said factual
finding of the Tribunal in the instant case.
9. This Court also finds that there is no error in the order of the
Tribunal in awarding maximum compensation. The Tribunal had appointed
an Advocate Commissioner to examine the respondent who had reported
that the respondent was in a vegetative state.
10. In the light of the above facts, the Tribunal was right in
awarding maximum compensation and no interference is called for.
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed, confirming
the award of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
30.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2026 of 2023
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
AT
To
1.The Court of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.2026 of 2023 and
C.M.P.No.19639 of 2023
30.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
