Madras High Court
K.Raju vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2023
C.M.A.No.604 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 02.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.604 of 2022
K.Raju ...Appellant
Vs.
Union of India
through General Manager,
Southern Railway, Chennai. ...Respondent
PRAYER : The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23(1) of
Railways Claims Tribunal, against the order passed by the Railways Claims
Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in O.A.(II-U)/169/2019 dated 23.12.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
For Respondent : Mr.M.Karthikeyan
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the order of
dismissal dated 23.12.2021 made in O.A.(II-U)/169/2019 on the file of
Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.604 of 2022
2. The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal
stating that on 07.06.2019, after attending his work, he wanted to meet his son,
who was taking treatment at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital,
Chenai; therefore, he boarded a Eletric Multiple Unit Train at Pattabiram
Railway Station to go to Chennai Central Station; that while, the said train
entered into Basin Bridge Junction Station, he had accidentally fallen down
from the train, due to the heavy crowd in the said train and run over by the
train, as a result of which, his left hand and left leg above the knee got crushed;
that he was treated as an in-patient at Stanley Medical College and Hospital,
Chennai and thereafter, his left hand and left leg above knee were amputated;
that since he was a bonafide passenger, he was entitled to a compensation of
Rs.8 lakhs together with interest from the date claim petition till the date of
payment.
3. The respondent herein filed a reply statement along with the report of
the Divisional Railway Manager stating that as per the records, the appellant
had fallen from the train on 07.06.2019 at about 18.57 hours, in the space
between the train and platform No.2 of Basin Bridge Station, due to which, he
sustained severe injuries; that the appellant indulged in an adventurous act and
that he did not possess any journey ticket and therefore, he was not a bonafide
passenger.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.604 of 2022
4.The Tribunal found that since the appellant did not hold any valid train
ticket, he cannot be treated as a bonafide passenger and therefore, dismissed the
claim petition.
5.Against the said order of dismissal dated 23.12.2021 made in O.A.(II-
U)/169/2019, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident is not
disputed by the respondent. The appellant had primafacie established that he
has travelled in the train and he sustained injuries on account of the fall from
the train. The nature of injuries suffered by him are crush injuries on the left
hand and in the left leg. He became unconscious immediately and therefore, he
had lost the ticket in the process. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that merely
because no ticket was found from the appellant, it cannot be held that the
appellant was not a bonafide passenger. In support of his submission, the
learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in 2018 ACJ 1441 that mere
absence of ticket from the injured or deceased will not negate the claim that he
was a bonafide passenger. The learned counsel further submitted that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.604 of 2022
appellant had discharged his initial burden of showing that he was a bonafide
passenger and the respondent had not let in any evidence to reject the claim of
the appellant. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court
in C.M.A.No.3126 of 2018 (S.Devaraj Vs. Union of India Owning) and the
judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in the case Radha Yadav Vs. Union of
India reported in 2018 ACJ 310.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
claim petition was righly dismissed by the Tribunal. The appellant did not
produce a ticket to establish that he was a bonafide passenger. In such
circumstances, he can only be treated as a ticketless traveller and therfore, he
was not entitled fo any compensation. The learned counsel further submitted
that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dismissing the
claim petition.
8. This Court finds that admittedly the appellant had fallen down from
the train on 07.06.2019 at about 18.57 hours between the trian and Plat form
No.2 of the Basin Bridge Junction and he had sustained severe injuries on his
left leg above the knee and the left hand. This fact is confirmed by the reply of
the respondent. The only question is whether in the absence of any ticket, he
can be considered to be a bonafide passenger. The Judgment of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.604 of 2022
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi referred supra
applies to the facts of the present case. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is extracted herein below:
"17.4. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the
Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or
deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for
compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of
ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that
he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant
which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts
and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be
decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will
have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found.
The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly. "
9. In this case, it is a fact that the nature of injuries was so grievious that
the left hand and the left leg above knee were amputated. The appellant had
also stated that because of the fall and the injuries, he became unconscious. In
such circumstances, one cannot expect the appellant to produce the ticket. His
case was that the ticket was lost. The appellant had filed an affidavit stating so.
The respondent has not denied the fact that he fell down from the train. The
initial burden has been discharaged by the appellant to show that he was a
bonafide passenger. The respondent has not let in any evidence to contradict the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.604 of 2022
evidence let in on the side of the appellant. Therefore, in the facts of the present
case, this Court is of the view that considering the nature of injuries suffered by
the appellant, the non-production of the ticket alone cannot be the basis to hold
that he was not a bonafide passenger. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal to
the effect that he was not a bonafide passenger is erroneous and the said finding
is liable to be set aside.
10. The next question is, what should be the compensation to be awarded
to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the
left hand and the left leg above the knee were amputated and his disability is
100% . Therefore, he is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. The learned
counsel for the respondent also fairly conceded that the appellant is entitled to
the said sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him. The
appellant is therefore entitled to Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest at the rate
of 8% per annum.
11.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. A sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- is awarded as compensation together with interest at the rate of
8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant is
directed to pay necessary Court fee, if any on the compensation awarded by this
Court. The respondent is directed to deposit the award amount now determined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.604 of 2022
by this Court, along with interest and costs, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is
permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs. No
costs.
02.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vkr
To
1.The Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.604 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
vkr
C.M.A.No.604 of 2022
02.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
