AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The appellants/applicants have preferred the present appeal against the Order dated 11.03.2009, in O.A. No. 10 of
2005, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The applicants, who are the wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased Uthandaraman, had filed a claim application in O.A. No. 10 of
2005, 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 the said Uthandaraman in a Railway accident.
It was submitted that on 27.06.2004, the deceased Uthandaraman had informed his parents and the first applicant that he was going to Chennai
to attend to his vegetable business and informed that he would initially be going to Kovilpatti from where he had planned to board Train No. 6704,
Pearl City Express (Tuticorin to Chennai), on the same day after seeing his relative at Kovilpatti. It was submitted that the applicants came to know
from the Railway Police, Trichy that one male dead person, aged about 25 years, was seen lying in a decomposed condition at KM365/900,
between Samudram and Kulathur Railway Station, at 11.00 a.m., on 30.06.2004 and after due enquiry the body was identified as the husband of
the first applicant and accordingly they passed the message to her.
It was submitted that the applicants had come to know from the Police that the deceased was travelling near the entrance in Train No. 6704,
Tuticorin-Chennai Pearl City Express in the general compartment as it was very much crowded and that he had possessed a Second Class open
ticket No. 082000, dated 27.06.2004, from Kovilpatti to Chennai for Rs. 132/- and that when the train passed between Samudram and Kulathur
Railway Station at KM 365/800-900, he had accidentally fallen down from the said train due to jerking of the train and his sleepiness and that he
was later noticed and identified on 30.06.2004. Hence, the applicants had filed the claim application against the respondent for claiming
compensation.
The respondent, in their counter statement, had denied the occurrence of the said accident. It was submitted that on 30.06.2004, at about 10.30
hours, Sri. M. Sethurathinam, Village Administrative Officer, Samudram Village, had informed to the Station Master that a male body, aged 25
years, was lying in a decomposed condition, on the right side of the track towards Trichy at KMs. 365/900 and that there is no eye witness or any
report from Guard of any train to the alleged accidental fall of the deceased. It was submitted that the postmortem was conducted on 30.06.2004
at 16.45 hours and it was found that the death had occurred about 72-96 hours prior to the postmortem and as such the death might have
occurred between 16.45 hours on 26.06.2004 to 16.45 hours on 27.06.2004.
It was further submitted that if the deceased had travelled in Train No. 6704, on 27.06.2004 and fallen down from the train as alleged in the
application, the incident might have occurred after 20.00 hours of 27.06.2004 as the train arrived at Kovilpatti Railway Station at about 20.30
hours and hence it was evident that the deceased had not fallen from the train, but it was a clear case of trespass. It was submitted that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the journey ticket produced was to misguide the Tribunal to get wrongful compensation and as
such the respondent is not liable to pay compensation u/s 123(c)(2) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed six issues namely:
i. Whether the applicants prove that they are the only dependants of the deceased N. Uthandaraman?
ii. Whether the applicants prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of incident as alleged?
iii. Whether the applicants prove that the deceased, N. Uthandaraman, died in an untoward incident on 27.06.2004 while travelling by train No.
6704 Tuticorin-Chennai Pearl City Express from Kovilpatti to Chennai at KM 365/800-900 between Samudram and Kulathur RS?
iv. Whether the respondents prove that the applicants are not entitled to any relief for the reasons set out in para 2 of the reply statement?
v. Whether the applicants are entitled to any compensation and if so, how much? and
vi. What relief?
On the applicants'' side, the third applicant was examined as A.W. 1 and seven documents were marked as Exs. A1 to A7 namely copy of FIR,
journey ticket, copy of inquest report, copy of final report, death certificate, PMC and LHC. On the respondent''s side one witness was examined
as R.W. 1 and one document was marked as Ex. R1 namely issue particulars of tickets.
On scrutiny of Ex. A7, it is seen that the applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased. A.W. 1, father of the deceased, had adduced evidence
that he was not an eye witness to the incident and came to know only from the Police who identified the dead body of his son as it was found only
on 30.06.2004, in a decomposed condition. In support of his evidence, he had marked Exs. A1 to A7.
On scrutiny of Ex. A1, it is seen that the Police lodged FIR in Crime No. 307 of 2004 and took up the investigation, based on the message from
Station Master, Samudram, on 30.06.2004, at 13.30 hours. On scrutiny of Ex. A3, it is seen that the Panchayatdars had opined that on
27.06.2004, while the deceased was travelling by Train, he had accidentally fallen down, struggled for life and died. The Tribunal had observed
that the postmortem was conducted on 30.06.2004, as per Ex. A6, wherein the Doctor had opined that the deceased would appear to have died
of injuries sustained in head and chest, about 72 to 96 hours, prior to the postmortem.
On scrutiny of Ex. A4, it is seen that the Police had recorded that the deceased would appear to have died of injuries sustained in head and
chest, 72 to 96 hours prior to postmortem, when travelling in a train near it''s door, while he was in a sleepy mood and had accidentally fallen
down due to the jolting of the train and concluded that it is a case of accidental death due to fall from the train. The Tribunal, on observing that the
respondent had not adduced any evidence on this issue, either oral or documentary to substantiate their Plea that it was a clear case of trespass,
held that the deceased died in an ''untoward incident'' on 27.06.2004, while travelling by train No. 6704, Tuticorin-Chennai Pearl City Express,
from Kovilpatti to Chennai at KM 365/800-900 between Samudram and Kulathur Railway Station.
The applicants had produced the journey ticket bearing No. 08200, from Kovilpatti to Chennai, for Rs. 132/-. It was the case of the
applicants that the deceased left Kovilpatti on 27.06.2004 as per the evidence of A.W. 1 and admittedly as per the final report, the said ticket was
recovered from the shirt pocket of the deceased.
R.W. 1, M. Mariappan, Chief Booking Supervisor, Kovilpatti, at the relevant point of time, had adduced evidence that Ex. A2 bearing No.
082000, was for travel from Kovilpatti to Chennai Egmore, was issued by him between 14.00 hours to 22.00 hours on 25.06.2004. He further
deposed that the written communication dated 29.03.2005 at Ex. R1 contains the details of tickets issued by the booking clerks also and that the
ten days statement for the period from 21.06.2005 to 30.06.2004, which he had produced was issued by the Chief Booking Supervisor, on
29.03.2005. On scrutiny of Ex. R1, it is seen that the ticket No. 08200 as per Ex. A2, falling in the range from 08143 to 08237 was issued on
25.06.2004 during second shift (14 to 22 hours) for train No. 6704, 6122 and 6124. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of the evidence of R.W. 1
and Ex. R1, held that the ticket as per Ex. A2 was issued on 25.06.2004.
The Tribunal, on observing that the Police had concluded that the deceased would have died on 27.06.2004 and on observing from the
evidence of A.W. 1, that he had seen the deceased on 27.06.2004, which fact is also corroborated by the inquest report as per Ex. A3, held that
since the journey ticket at Ex. A2 was issued on 25.06.2004, a presumption can be made that either the deceased was travelling on 27.06.2004
by the train in question with the ticket cited, which is not a valid travel authority on 27.06.2004 and as such he cannot be taken as a bona fide
passenger as he had travelled without a valid ticket. The Tribunal further observed that the deceased might have travelled on 27.06.2004 with an
used ticket, which was purchased on 25.06.2004 and through that ticket the deceased must have already performed the journey and this fact was
presumed on the basis of evidence let in on behalf of the applicants, who had stated that the deceased was doing vegetable business and living
separately from his family and hence the Tribunal opined that it was possible that the deceased had been travelling daily.
Hence, the Tribunal, on holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger at the time of accident, as alleged held that the applicants are
not entitled to any relief or compensation and hence dismissed the claim application filed by the applicants.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim application, the applicants have preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal failed to note that the Railway Police, Trichy,
had found the body of the deceased near Samudram and Kulathur Railway Station and also failed to note that the Doctor, who had done
postmortem, had deposed that the deceased died due to the railway accident. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the deceased was
in possession of railway ticket No. 082000, dated 27.06.2004, from Kovilpatti to Chennai.
Further, it is contended that the Tribunal failed to note that in the final report as per Ex. A4, the Police had stated that the deceased died while
travelling in the train near the door. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the respondent had not produced any evidence to show that
the deceased had trespassed into railway property. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal and to grant compensation of Rs.
4,00,000/-.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the appellants had not proved their case beyond reasonable doubts
through oral and documentary evidence. Further, the date of death and time of the death and nature of death had not been revealed before the
Tribunal. Actually, the Village Administrative Officer, attached to Samudram Village, had informed the Station Master, that on 30.06.2004, at
about 10.30 a.m., that a male body aged about 25 years, was lying on the track on a decomposed condition, towards Trichy, at about KMs.
365/900. There is no eye-witness or any report from the guard of the train to prove that the alleged accident happened while the deceased was
travelling in the train. Further, no chain pulling or detention of train was reported. The postmortem report reveals that the deceased''s hair and scalp
had stated to come out of the body and that foul smelling emanating from the body and that the death had occurred three days prior to the
conduction of the postmortem. Therefore, it is evident that the deceased had not died while he was travelling in the train and the same had been
proved before the Tribunal.
On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the dismissal order
of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the FIR had been registered by the Railway Police on 30.06.2004, regarding the death of the
deceased and it contains that the deceased had died in the railway premises. Further, the journey ticket dated 25.06.2004 was produced before
the Tribunal. It clearly proves that the deceased had travelled as a bona fide passenger. The time of death could not be ascertained by the doctor
exactly. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant compensation of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.
This Court directs the respondent herein to execute this Court''s Judgment, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this Judgment, by way of depositing the compensation to the credit of O.A. No. 10 of 2005, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai
Bench.
After such a deposit having been made, the Presiding Officer of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, to disburse the compensation
amount to the major applicants namely applicants 1, 3 and 4, as per the ratio to be fixed by the Presiding Officer, after receiving a memo, along
with a copy of this Judgment, including legal heir certificate.
Further, this Court directs the Presiding Officer of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, to deposit the minor''s share amount with
proportionate interest thereon, in a nationalized bank as fixed deposit in the cumulative deposit scheme, till she attains the age of a major and hand
over the fixed deposit certificates to the mother of the minor claimant. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the Order dated
11.03.2009, in O.A. No. 10 of 2005, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, is set aside. No costs.