Smt. R. Nandini v. The Union Of India Owning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:28.02.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN C.M.A. No. 1383 of 2016 1.

Smt. R. Nandini 2.

R. Harish 3.

R. Sudha 4.

R. Ragini (A2 to A4 minors rep. by mother & Natural guardian A-1) ..Appellants/Claimants Vs.

The Union of India owning Southern Railway, rep. by General Manager, Chennai - 600 003.

..Respondent/Respondents Prayer:

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in O.A.(II-U) 321/2014.

For Appellants ::

Mr.T. Rajamohan For Respondents::

Mr.C.V. Ramachandramoorthy

O R D E R

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased, by name, one R. Ramesh, aged 30 years, who is said to have died on 07.04.2014 while travelling as a passenger from Naidupet Police Station to Chennai in PuriChennai Express Train, on the dismissal of the claim petition filed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, by order dated 11.03.2016.

2.

The case of the appellants is that the 1st appellant's husband, R. Ramesh, travelled from Naidupet to Chennai to purchase provisions on 07.04.2014 and he accidentally fell from the moving train at Polireddypalem and died. The Railways resisted the claim stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and incident was either a suicide or due to some other reason, other than accidental fall from the train. 3.

On the side of the appellants, the 1st appellant, namely, the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and ExsA1 to A3, A4 - FIR and A5 - Inquest Report were marked. Eventhough A.W.1 deposed that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he died due to accidental fall from the train, the Tribunal refused to believe the version of A.W.1 only

on the premise that she came to know that her husband accidentally fell from the train and died from a co-passenger. Moreover, in the cross-examination, she had stated that nobody accompanied the deceased on his fateful journey. However, an affidavit signed by one Muniswami Reddy was served upon the learned counsel for the respondent, which stated that the said Munisami Reddy saw the deceased falling from the train and therefore, she did not approach the Court with clean hands. 4.

The aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is not sustainable for the reason that it is not for the first time, that Muniswami Reddy was introduced in the case. It has been noted in the Inquest Report, Ex-A5 and final report that Muniswami Reddy saw the accidental fall of the deceased from the train. The relevant portion at column No.XV of Ex-A5, Inquest Report, is usefully extracted as follows:

XV As per the contents of FIR, statements of the witnesses, place and state of body and injuries available on the body of the deceased and especially as per the statement of direct witness by name K. Muniswami Reddy, S/o. Kuppan Reddy, age: 32 years, Pallireddy by caste, Gummudipundi Village and Mandal, Tiruvallur Disrict the deceased Rathnareddy Ramesh, S/o. Rathna Reddy, aged: 30 years, Pallireddy by caste, Tada, Sujatha Nagar, r/o, Agraharampet, Naidupet, Naidupet Mandal, Nellore District left from his resident on 07.04.2014 afternoon and reached Naidupet RS and boarded in the general compartment of train No. 22589 Puri to Chennai Express and bound to Chennai for purchasing for raw materials for his business purpose. At about 14.

45 hours the deceased was accidentally fallen down from the door way from running train at the northern side yard of Polireddypalayam RS at KM No;89/23-21, received severe head inury and brain matters came out , and fracture injuries on the legs and hands, and severe bleeding injuries all over the body and died on the spot. This is the opinion of Panchayatdars.

Even in the final report prepared by the Railway Police, P.W.s 5 and 6 have stated that they witnessed the accident. The relevant portion of the final report reads thus: " Investigation disclosed that the deceased is the native of Naidupet doing coolly works and business works. P.W.6 is the wife of the deceased delivered a female baby at Govt. Area Hospital, Gudur. Yesterday, ie., on 7.4.2014 morning the deceased informed P.W.6 that he is going to Chennai for purchasing of raw materials for business purpose. Accordingly, the

deceased left Gudur and reached to Naidupet and attend his persons works and left Naidupet by train No.22589 Puri Chennai Express at Naidupet RS and bound to Chennai. While in journey, P.W.5 who is the known person to the deceased witnessed the deceased is travelling in the said train by stood near the door of general compartment. While on the way, the train passes Polireddypalem RS. the deceased was accidentally fallen down from running train due to shakes and jerks on the train resulting with the deceased received fatal injuries to his head and other parts and died on the spot. P.W.4 witnessed the incident, but the train has no stopping at Polireddypalem, then he got down at Sulurpet RS and get back to Poliredduypalem RS and informd the matter to the SM, Polireddypalem. Thereafter, P.W.4 informed the same to the blood relatives over phone."

Therefore, the affidavit of Muniswami Reddy would not prove otherwise the appellants' case.

A.W.1, in her chiefexamination, correctly stated that a co-passenger witnessed the accident. Merely because, the person, who witnessed the accident, did not start the travel together with the deceased, would not mean that a known person, would not have witnessed the accident. Probably, during the course of travel, a known person could have met or travelled together with the deceased and that person would have witnessed the accident. Further, it is also proved by the fact that Muniswami Reddy has been shown as a witness in the Inquest Report and he had also deposed during the investigation, which culminated in the filing of final report. Therefore, there is no occasion for the Tribunal to ignore A.W.1's evidence citing technical contradiction in the evidence.

The Law of Evidence is not strictly applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal as it is not a Civil Court. The Act itself is a Social Welfare Legislation intended to protect the victims of Railway accidents. Any hairsplitting technicality will lead to frustration of the very object of the Act. The approach of the Tribunal is very technical and contrary to the evidence available on record. Mere contradiction is not enough to ignore the abundant evidence available on record, namely, inquest report, final report and the statements of Muniswami Reddy before the Railway Police.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent very strenuously contended that there was no ticket recovered from the deceased to prove that he was a bona fide passenger. The incident was an accidental fall from a moving train. No one knows upto what distance the body of the deceased would have been dragged. Even the inquest report would reveal that except the clothes, nothing was found on the body of the deceased. Column VII of the Inquest Report evidences this aspect and it is extracted

hereunder:

VII State of the body: Injuries: Forehead broken and brain matters came out. 2) Right hand joint fractured and lingering to the body, 3) Severe bleeding injury on the present at the below the right knee. 4) Fracture injury present below the left knee 5) Aberrations were present all over the body.

Clothes and property: 1) Black color half hands shirt with brown colore and blue colore strips are present,

2) White cut baniyan 3) Green, Blue colore underweat. Except the above there are no valuables with the deceased.

From the above, it is clear that only clothes were available on the body of the deceased. There are possibilities of third parties stealing away valuables, belongings and other articles. Moreover, while falling from the train, the ticket would have been carried away from the victim's body. Therefore, it is highly absurd to think that the ticket would be always available with the victim. Moreover, there is no rebuttal evidence let in on the part of the respondent to contradict what has been stated by A.W.1 as well as to disprove abundant documentary evidence available, that too, prepared by the Railway Police themselves. Therefore, this Court comes to following conclusions: (i) The deceased was travelling from Naidupet to Chennai and on the way, he accidentally fell from the train; and (ii) He is a bona fide passenger and therefore, his legal heirs are entitled to compensation.

6.

Though the accident occurred on 07.04.2014, the Tribunal decided the matter on 11.03.2016 by which time, a notification dated 22.12.2016 had been issued enhancing the compensation payable, in case of deaths, due to railway accidents, from Rs.4 lakhs to Rs.8 lakhs. In view of the said notification, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of deposit.

7.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

8.

The respondent is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest and costs, before the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the 1st appellant, who is the wife of the deceased, would be entitled to Rs.3.5 lakhs and the Tribunal is directed to transfer the said sum directly to the account of the 1st appellant through RTGS within a period of four weeks thereafter. The share of the minor

appellants 2, 3 & 4 @ Rs.1.5 lakhs each, shall be deposited in interest bearing Fixed Deposit, in any one of the Nationalised Banks, till they attain majority. The 1st appellant would be permitted to withdraw interest accruing on such deposit once in three months.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nv To The General Manager, The Union of India owning Southern Railway, Chennai - 600 003.

+1cc to Mr.C.V.Ramachandramurthy, Advocate Sr.No.15724 +1cc to Mr.T.Rajamohan, Advocate Sr.No.15277 +1cc to Mr.T.Rajamohan, Advocate Sr.No.15277 dt.17.4.2018 PA(CO) sm:9.4.2018 C.M.A. No. 1383 of 2016