Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:
04. 11.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.No.2826 of 2013 The Union of India owning Southern Railway Represented by the General Manager Chennai 600 003 ...Appellant vs 1.K.Karuppusamy 2.Smt.K.Ramathal ...Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the order dated 17.07.2012 made in O.A (II-U) No.109 of 2012 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench. For Appellant :Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Krishnan Senior counsel for M/s.D.Dhanam -----
JUDGMENT
The Union of India, owner of the Southern Railway represented by the General Manager of Southern Railway, Chennai, is the appellant in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
2. A Claim was made by the respondents 1 and 2 herein being the parents of late K.Ravikumar, who according to them died on account of an untoward incident as defined in Section 123 (c)(ii) of the Railways Act. They had contended before the Tribunal that their son K.Ravikumar, who travelled in an unknown train on 12.01.2011 proceeding towards Katpadi Railway Station, fell down in a curve due to heavy crowd and due to the jerk and jolt of the train at Km 70/628 between Arakkonam and Melpakkam Railway Station.
3. The claim was resisted by the appellant on the basis of the averments found in their reply statement denying the allegations made in the claim application in general and contending that if at all he had fell down from the running train, there would have been a compliant lodged with the Station Master and/or a chain pulling by a co-passenger and that since there was no such chain pulling and no such complaint to the Station Master by a co-passenger, the accident alleged in the claim application could not be true. It was contended further that the deceased was not at all a bonafide passenger and the alleged accident in which he sustained the fatal injuries could not be termed an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) (ii) of the Railways Act. Based on the above said contentions, the appellant prayed for the dismissal of the application filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.No.109 of 2012.
4. In the enquiry conducted by the Tribunal, the first respondent herein/first applicant figured as the sole witness (AW1) and 7 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A7. On the side of the appellant/Southern Railways, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
5. At the end of enquiry, the Tribunal passed an award directing payment of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with an interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of the order of the Tribunal till the date of actual payment holding that the death of deceased Ravikumar occurred as a result of an untoward incident as he had fallen down from a running train in between Arakkonam and Melpakkam on the above said date and time. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal dated 17.11.2012 made in O.A.No.109 of 2012, the appellant herein has approached this Court with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989.
6. The matter stands listed today for admission. The learned counsel for the appellant, drawing the attention of the Court to the averments made in the claim petition and pointing out the answer made by the first respondent herein during cross-examination while he was deposing as AW1, argues that the respondents have come forward with conflicting and contradictory versions as to in which direction the train from which the deceased fell down was travelling - either from Katpadi to Chennai or from Chennai to Katpadi. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the averment made in the claim application to the effect that the deceased fell down from the train while he was travelling in an unknown train from Chennai to Katpadi and the answer given by AW1 during cross-examination admitting that at the time of accident, namely a fall from the running train, he was travelling from Katpadi to Chennai. By pointing out the said stand of AW1, which according to the appellant's counsel is a conflicting and contradictory statement, learned counsel for the appellant argues that the same itself will give raise to an inference that the theory of a fall from the running train would not be true and that a death which had otherwise occurred had been projected as a death due to a fall from a running train.
7. This Court is not in a position to accept the above said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not the case of the respondents herein, who are the parents of the deceased, that they were eye witnesses to the occurrence. It is also not their case that they were aware of the train number or name of the train in which the deceased was travelling at the time of the occurrence. On the other hand, they made it clear that the deceased fell down from a train in which he was travelling and they did not know either the name or number of the train. The parents of the deceased had made a claim for the death of their son in an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (ii) of the Railways Act. When such is the case, the concerned Railways should have taken a definite stand that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger in the train from which he fell down. It is also not their clear contention that he died due to some other cause and the dead body had been placed on the track. On the other hand, besides eliciting an answer that the deceased was an accused in a murder case tried in a Court in Chennai and putting a suggestion that he could have committee suicide, the counsel for the Southern Railways before the Tribunal put another suggestion which does have the effect of nullifying and demolishing the attempt made by the Southern Railways to project the death as a suicide.
8. Though the respondents would have stated in their claim application that the deceased fell down from the train while he was travelling from Chennai to Katpadi, a specific suggestion was put to him by the counsel for the Southern Railways that the deceased fell down from a running train while he was travelling from Katpadi to Chennai and not from Chennai to Katpadi. The said suggestion was admitted by AW1. By putting such a suggestion, which is suicidal to the Southern Railways, the appellant has made an admission that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in a train which was proceeding from Katpadi to Chennai and while he was thus travelling, he fell down from the train and sustained the fatal injuries leading to his death. The said suggestion alone shall be enough to hold that the death of the deceased Ravikumar was a result of an untoward incident described in Section 123(c) (ii) of the Railways Act. P.R.SHIVAKUMAR.J., gpa 9. The Tribunal has not committed any error or mistake in arriving at a conclusion that the death was due to an untoward incident and hence, the concerned Railway was liable to pay compensation to the parents of the deceased. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with the provisions. Interest awarded also cannot be successfully challenged. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal committed no wrong in passing the award capable of being interfered with by this Court in exercise of its appellate power under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The appeal does not even merit admission and the same deserves to be rejected at the threshold. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 04.11.2013 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gpa To The Railway Claims Tribunal Chennai Bench C.M.A.No.2826 of 2013