Madras High Court
The Union Of India Owning Southern ... vs S.K.Aathish on 12 September, 2023
C.M.A.No.2116 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.2116 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.20584 of 2023
The Union of India owning Southern Railway,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Chennai – 600 003. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.S.K.Aathish
2.S.K.Yokesh
(2nd Respondent is minor represented by
his elder brother as natural guardian) ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act 1987 & Section 104 Read with Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of
C.P.C., against the order in OA (II-U) 60/2021 dated 15.05.2023, on the file
of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi
JUDGMENT
The appeal challenges the Award of the Tribunal granting
compensation to the respondents herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2116 of 2023
2.The respondents herein had filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal stating that their mother, the deceased on 20.12.2019 at about
13.45 hours boarded the D6 Coach of Train No.12635 Vaigai Express; that
about 19.00 hours; near Poongudi Railway Station when the deceased went
to the toilet, she lost balance and fell down from the train and sustained
injuries; that the train was stopped by the co-passengers with the help of
T.T.E and Guard of the train, she was admitted in the hospital where she
was declared dead; that the deceased had lost the ticket and prayed for
compensation.
3.The appellant resisted the claim petition and filed the DRM Report
which stated that when the deceased went to the toilet slipped and fell down
and the accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased that
the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and therefore, the claim petition
is liable to be dismissed.
4.Before the Tribunal, the son of the deceased had filed an affidavit
stating that his mother along with his grandfather had purchased tickets and
boarded the train.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2116 of 2023
5.The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that the
deceased was a bonafide passenger as the respondents have discharged their
initial burden of establishing that the deceased travelled in the train and the
train ticket was lost during the accident. The Tribunal also found that even
assuming that the accident took place on account of negligence of the
deceased it would not affect the liability of the Railways to pay
compensation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in
several cases.
6.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award of
the Tribunal is erroneous; that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the
deceased had suffered mental illness, and hence the appellant is not liable to
pay compensation to the respondents; that the respondents had also not
produced the travel ticket of the deceased and her father; that the son who
claimed to have purchased the platform ticket had also not filed the same
before the Tribunal; and that therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have
accepted the claim of the respondents and hence, prayed for setting aside
the award.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2116 of 2023
7.This Court on perusal of the award of the Tribunal finds that the
accident is not disputed by the appellant. The DRM Report confirms the
fact that an untoward incident took place by which, the deceased slipped
and fell down from the running train. As regards the non-production of
ticket, it is trite law that absence of ticket by itself would not be the basis to
deny the claim, if the claimants have explained the reason for non-
production of ticket. In the instant case, the son of the deceased had filed
an affidavit stating that the deceased and her father purchased the ticket, but
could not produce the same because it was lost during the accident.
Further, even assuming that the deceased fell down due to her own
negligence, it is well settled that it will not have any effect on the
compensation payable under Section 124(A) of the Railways Act. This has
been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jameela &
Others vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2010 SC 3705 and in the case of
Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others reported in
(2008) 4 MLJ 323 SC.
8.That apart the above appeal has not raised any substantial question
of law. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order of the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2116 of 2023
awarding compensation to the respondents is liable to be confirmed and
hence, confirmed.
9.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
Confirming the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal in OA(II-v)60/2021. The 1st appellant is permitted to withdraw his
share of the award amount along with interest. The share of the 2nd
appellant is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Bank,
till he attains majority. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
since the claim petition was made in the year 2021, the Tribunal ought not
to have granted interest from the date of accident. The submission of the
learned counsel cannot be countenanced. This Court is of the view that the
compensation is payable from the date of the accident and hence there is no
reason to interfere in the award of the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2116 of 2023
11.It is seen that the appellant has paid Court Fee of Rs.7,354/- as
against the Court Fee of Rs.1,500/- payable. Therefore, the appellant is
entitled to refund of excess Court Fee.
12.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
gvn/pam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2116 of 2023
To
The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2116 of 2023
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
gvn
C.M.A.No.2116 of 2023
12.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
