Union Of India vs M.Sakthi
2023 Latest Caselaw 9687 Mad

                                                                                  C.M.A.No.1563 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 04.08.2023

                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                               C.M.A.No.1563 of 2023
                                                        and
                                               C.M.P.No.15732 of 2023

                     Union of India,
                     Rep., by its General Manager,
                     Southern Railway,
                     Chennai.                                                       ... Appellant

                                                            Vs

                     1.M.Sakthi
                     2.Dhaneswar (Minor)
                     3.Kajendrarisii(Minor)                                   ... Respondents
                     [Respondents 2 & 3 rep., by mother and natural guardian]

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23(1) of Railway
                     Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the order dated 23.07.2021 made in
                     OA(II-U), 159 of 2019, on the file of Court of the Railway Claims Tribunal,
                     Chennai.

                                          For Appellant          : Mr.M.Vijay Anand

                                          For Respondents        : Mr.S.Parthasarathy




                     1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   C.M.A.No.1563 of 2023

                                                     JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the

award of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

2. It is the case of the respondents/claimants that the deceased

travelled in the train from Jolarpettai - Erode on 25.02.2019 at about 6.45

hours; that about 6.45 hours, while getting up from the seat, his head hit the

luggage carrier and he fainted and fell down; that with the help of public, he

was admitted at Salem Aishwaryam Hospital for injury and later at KMCH

and Royal Care Hospital, Coimbatore; that on 26.02.2019 he was admitted

at Government Hospital, Salem for treatment but succumbed to injuries on

27.02.2019; that since the deceased died due to an untoward incident and

was a bonafide passenger, the appellant is liable to pay compensation.

2.2 The appellant resisted the said claim petition stating that the

claim petition is not maintainable since the deceased died due to a natural

cause namely cardiac arrest as opined by the Doctor; and that the appellant

is not liable to pay compensation under Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act

since the death had taken place due to natural cause.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1563 of 2023

2.3 The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary

evidence let in by the appellant and respondents found that the deceased

was a bonafide passenger and died only because of an untoward incident

and hence, entitled to compensation.

3. Mr.M.Vijay Anand, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the deceased died due to a natural cause i.e., cardiac arrest as per the

report given by a private Hospital by name Aishwaryam Speciality Hospital,

Salem and the claim petition filed by the respondents is an after thought.

The respondents claim that the head of the deceased hit the luggage carrier

is also improbable, since the luggage carrier is at a considerable height. The

learned counsel further submitted that there is no eye witness to the

occurrence and in the absence of which it cannot be definitely said that the

deceased suffered any head injury and hence, prayed for allowing this

appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents per contra submitted

that the Tribunal taking into consideration the final opinion given by the

Department of Forensic Medicine on 16.04.2019, which reads“the deceased

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1563 of 2023

would appear to have died of multiple injuries.” held that the deceased died

on account of untoward incident. The learned counsel further submitted

that the earliest version of all the persons who were examined on the side of

the respondents has to be taken into consideration which is that the deceased

had suffered an injury during the train journey. The learned counsel further

submitted that the postmortem certificate indicates that the deceased

suffered following injuries on the head:-O/D OF HEAD:-Scalp-

ContusionM-10X6X0.5 CMS noted over left frontal region. Vault-

Intact.Brain-Diffuse Sub Arachnoid Hemorrhage note over both Cerebral

Hemispheres. Base of Skull-Intact; that the version of the respondents is

more probable and the Tribunal therefore rightly awarded compensation.

The learned counsel submitted that in any case, it is a beneficial legislation

and ought to be interpreted in favour of respondents; and that admittedly,

the deceased was a bonafide passenger, he had a duty pass as he was

working a Constable attached to General Railway Police and hence, prayed

for dismissal of the appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1563 of 2023

5. The only question in the instant appeal is-

“Whether the deceased died on account of an untoward incident?

6. Though the private Hospital by name Aishwaryam Speciality

Hospital, Salem had opined that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest, it is

seen from the records that the deceased had suffered head injuries. It is no

doubt true that the exact manner in which he sustained injuries is not clear

either from the evidence of the respondents or from the evidence on the side

of the appellant. The postmortem certificate shows that the deceased had a

contusion measuring 10x6x0.5 centimeters over the Left Frontal Region.

The Forensic Department had also opined that the deceased would have

died of multiple injuries. It is not the case of the respondents that the

deceased sustained injuries elsewhere. Therefore, this Court is of the view

that the Tribunal was right in holding that the deceased died on account of

an untoward incident. Considering the evidence and the medical records let

in on the side of the appellant and respondents, this Court is of the view that

the deceased sustained injuries during the journey in the train and died due

to the said injuries. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the said

finding of the Tribunal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1563 of 2023

7. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed

confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. Consequently connected

miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. The 1st

respondent is permitted to withdraw her share of the compensation amount,

less the amount already withdrawn, if any. The share of the minor

respondents 2 and 3 are directed to be deposited in any one of the

Nationalised Bank till the minor respondents attain majority. However, the

1st respondent, mother of the minor respondents 2 and 3 is permitted to

withdraw the accrued interest once in three months.

04.08.2023

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No AT

To

1.The Court of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1563 of 2023

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

AT

C.M.A.No.1563 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.15732 of 2023

04.08.2023

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