AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The appellant/respondent has preferred the present appeal against the Order dated 11.08.2009, in O.A. No. 155 of
2008, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench. The short facts of the case are as follows:--
The appellants, who are the parents of the deceased C. Ananthanarayanan, had filed a claim application in O.A. No. 155 of 2008, on the file of
the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, claiming a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation from the respondent for the death of their son in
a railway accident.
It was submitted that when the deceased was travelling in EMU train bound for Thirumalpur from Chennai Beach, by boarding it in
Nungambakkam and when he tried to alight from the train at St. Thomas Mount, he had accidentally slipped and fallen down and died. It was also
submitted that the deceased had a valid season ticket bearing No. 396582561. Hence, the applicants had filed the claim petition against the
respondent.
The respondent, in their counter statement, had submitted that the alleged incident might be one other than falling from the running train for which
the respondent is not liable u/s 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989. It was also submitted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and
hence it was prayed to dismiss the claim application.
In D.R.M''s. report dated 25.04.2009, it was mentioned that the accidental fall from the train and the availability of the season ticket have been
admitted. But, in the reply a contradictory and conflicting position had been taken by the respondent. No explanation had been offered on behalf of
the respondent regarding the contradictions in the reply statement vis-�-vis the contents of the DRM report.
On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed five issues namely:
i. Was there an untoward incident involving the deceased envisaged u/s 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 as alleged?
ii. Whether all the applicants are the only dependants of the deceased as alleged as per Section 123(b)(i) to (iv) of the Railways Act, 1989?
iii. Whether all the applicants are entitled to any compensation and if so, the quantum for each?
iv. Whether the applicants are entitled to the interest claimed? and
v. To what other relief, if any?
On the applicants'' side one witness was examined as A.W.1 and ten documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A10 namely monthly season ticket,
I.D. Card, I.D. card of the deceased, FIR, inquest report in Crime No. 558 of 2008, death report, postmortem certificate, final report, death
certificate, legal heir certificate. On the respondent''s side one witness was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.
A.W.1 had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim and in support of his evidence, he had marked
Exs.A1 to A10. On scrutiny of Ex.A3, it is seen that the deceased was a student and unmarried. On scrutiny of Ex.A10 it is seen that the
applicants are the parents of the deceased and the only legal heirs of the deceased. On scrutiny of Ex.R1, it is seen that the deceased had fallen
down from the train and had expired and that he had a valid second class season ticket (No. 396582561) to travel between STM and MPK. On
scrutiny of Ex.A8 final report, the police had concluded the case as ''Train Accidental Death) and that the deceased due to slip of foot, had fallen
down on the track and died on the spot, while he was getting down at St. Thomas Mount Railway Station from EMU Train.
Hence, the Railway Tribunal had held that the deceased, who was a bonafide passenger (with valid season ticket) envisaged u/s 123(2) of
Railways Act, 1989, had died in an untoward incident. The Railway Tribunal, on scrutiny of the Compensation Rules, had held that the applicants
are entitled to get Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation, as per the prescribed rate of compensation for death. Further, the Tribunal had held that the
applicants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 24.12.2000 (date of filing of claim application) till the date of order and 9% per
annum from the date of their order till the date of actual payment. Further, the Tribunal had directed the respondent to pay the compensation
amount together with interest, as stated above.
Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/respondent has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal never permitted the appellant to cross-examine
the claimants and the claimants witness, who come with imaginary stories. It is contended that even by the own admission of the applicants, the
deceased got down from the moving train, which is prohibited as warning has been placed in all compartments and stations. Further, it is
contended that the Tribunal had failed to see the postmortem report, wherein it had been stated that the body had been crushed into pieces and as
such it is evident that the injuries suffered by him were voluntary and the same was not attributable to the railways.
It is contended that no eye witnesses had been examined to show that the incident had taken place in the manner alleged and also to prove that
the deceased had travelled as a bona fide passenger. It is contended further that when the postmortem report clearly indicates that the victim was
hit by train, findings to the contrary has only to be termed as perverse. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
The learned counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted that the deceased Ananthanarayanan was studying in B.Com., course at
Vaishnava College. After attending the college, he had boarded the electric train at Nungambakkam and had a monthly season ticket. As such, he
was a bona fide passenger. On 23.09.2008, when the deceased tried to get down at St. Thomas Mount, he had accidentally slipped and fallen
down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to it.
The learned counsel has further submitted that the Tribunal had framed necessary issues and decided the case in favour of the applicants and
granted the compensation amount. As such, there is no lacuna in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Further, the accident had occurred in the
railway premises and the same had been confirmed by FIR. Further, the applicants had produced the monthly season ticket of the deceased and it
clearly proves that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. It has been clearly proved that the deceased had died in an untoward accident.
On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned
order of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any lapse in the conclusions arrived at for granting compensation. This Court is of the view that the
Tribunal had framed fives issues and decided the case in an appropriate manner after recording evidence of the applicant and documentary proof.
Therefore, the above appeal does not have enough force to allow it and hence it is liable to be dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is liable to
be confirmed.
As per records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount has been deposited by the appellant and that the applicants have been permitted
to withdraw a portion of the deposited amount. Now, the applicants are at liberty to withdraw the balance compensation amount lying in the credit
of O.A. No. 155 of 2008, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. This
Court further directs the Railway Claims Tribunal to make necessary arrangements to disburse the said amount at once. In the result, this civil
miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Order dated 11.08.2009, in O.A. No. 155 of 2008, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.