Soosai Anthoney vs Union Of India

G.Girish, J

The judgment dated 07.06.2017 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in the case with number O.A.IIU/ERS/2015/0088, rejecting the

claim for compensation filed by the parents of deceased Sahaya Subin who died on 24.07.2015 in an untoward incident while travelling in Train

No.16649 Parasuram Express, is under challenge in this appeal.

According to the applicants in that claim case, their son, while travelling from Thrissur to Nagercoil Junction on 24.07.2015, happened to fall down

from Parasuram Express train at a place near Muringoor railway gate due to heavy sudden jerk of the train resulting in fatal injuries leading to his

death. Stating that the aforesaid incident would come under the definition of ‘untoward incident’ under Section 124(c)(2) of the Railways Act,

1989, the applicants approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench claiming compensation Rs.4,00,000/-. The Tribunal rejected the claim

with the finding that the deceased had acted callously, unwisely and imprudently since the first information report registered in the case as well as the

report of the TTR to the Station Master, Irinjalakkuda Railway Station contained indications that the deceased had jumped from the train in between

Puthukkad and Irinjalakkuda. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the applicants therein had preferred this appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel representing Southern Railway.

The fact that the appellants’ son Sahaya Subin died as a result of a fall from the Parasuram Express Train on 24.07.2015 in between Puthukkad

and Irinjalakkuda, is not in dispute. However, the respondent would contend that it was not an accidental fall, but a jump from the train leading to self-

inflicted injuries. The above contention of the respondent was accepted by the Railway Claims Tribunal by relying on the indications in the First

Information Report marked as Ext.A1 as well as the information conveyed by the TTR of Parasuram Express to the Station Master of Irinjalakkuda

Railway Station. The Tribunal also placed reliance upon an investigation report of the respondent that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger

since no travelling authority or ticket has been recovered from his body.

The reasoning of the Tribunal in the above regard for disallowing the claim of the appellants, cannot survive the scrutiny of law. It is to be noted

that though there is an indication in the First Information Report relating to the incident that the deceased had jumped from the train, the final report

submitted by the Investigating Agency has categorized the above incident as a fall from the train. That apart, the DRM Investigation Report of the

respondent also indicated that the deceased fell down from the train while travelling negligently near the door of the compartment. In view of the

above indications in the final report submitted by the Police and the DRM Investigation Report of the respondent, the mere fact that the First

Information Report as well as the information conveyed by the TTR to the Station Master contained the allegation of a jump from the train by the

deceased, cannot be attributed any credence. It is pertinent to note that the railway did not conduct an appropriate enquiry into the cause of the

incident. It has been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. A.Geetha & Ors. [2017 ICO 794] that when the question is

about the actual cause of the incident the burden is upon the shoulders of the railway and its officials to conduct a proper enquiry into the cause of

incident. As far as the present case is concerned, no such enquiry seems to have been conducted by the railway. On the other hand, as already stated

above, the investigation report of DRM would give the indication that the deceased fell down from the running train by travelling negligently near the

door of the compartment. Thus, it has to be stated that the Railway Claims Tribunal committed serious error in arriving at the finding that the deceased

had jumped from the train and hence, disqualified to have compensation.

The observation of the Tribunal that, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger on the day of incident since no train ticket was recovered from

his body, is also totally unjustified. It is pertinent to note that the applicants had produced the train ticket of the deceased before the Tribunal, and the

impugned order contains reference in that regard. Having regard to the normal presumption which could be drawn from the above train ticket, as well

as the clear indications in the reports of the DRM and the Police about the death of the deceased as a result of a fall from Parasuram Express on

24.07.2015, it is not possible to say, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the deceased was not a bona fide traveller in that train. It appears

that the Railway Claims Tribunal has relied on mere surmises and conjectures towards arriving at such unsubstantiated conclusions. Thus, it has to be

stated that the death of the appellants’ son Sahaya Subin happened as a result of an untoward incident coming under the purview of Section

124(c)(2) of the Railway’s Act, 1989. Needless to say that, the appellants being the parents and dependents of the deceased, are entitled for

compensation from the respondent for the death suffered by the abovesaid Sahaya Subin.

As per the Schedule under Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 as amended with effect from

01.01.2017, death which comes under Part-I, is liable to be compensated with the payment of an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. Formerly, the compensation

amount which was fixed for death cases was Rs.4,00,000/-. As regards the question whether the applicants could claim the prevailing rate of

compensation for the incident which occurred in the year 2015, the answer could be found from the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v.

Rina Devi [2018 (2) KLT 1060], wherein it has been held that the compensation amount has to be calculated by applying a reasonable interest upon

the compensation amount prevailing at the date of accident, and that if the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of

the award, the claimant will be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. Going by the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court, the applicants herein are

entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- since the amount calculated by applying interest at the rate of 6% per annum upon the amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from 24.07.2015 till this date, would be less than Rs.8,00,000/-.

As a conclusion to the aforesaid discussions, I find that the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, is liable to be set aside,

and the appellants are entitled for a compensation at the rate mentioned above.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed as follows :

(i) The judgment dated 07.06.2017 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.IIU/ERS/2015/0088, is hereby set aside.

(ii) The respondent is directed to pay compensation Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the appellants (applicants in O.A.IIU/ERS/ 2015/0088), within a period

of 30 days from today.

(iii) In the event of failure of the respondent to make payment, as directed above, the appellants would be entitled to realize the above amount with interest at the rate

of 9% per annum from 03.08.2024 till the date of actual payment.