Madras High CourtCMA/79/2016dismissed

The Union Of India Owning v. Murugesan

2016-01-19Honourable Mr Justice T.Raja4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA C.M.A.No.79 of 2016 The Union of India owning Southern Railway rep.by its General Manager Chennai 600 003 ..

Appellant/Respondent -Vs1. Murugesan

2. Lakshmi ..

Respondents/Applicants Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order dated 19.6.2014 made in O.A.No.(II-U) 237 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench. For Appellant ::

Mr.A.P.Srinivas

JUDGMENT

This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the impugned order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 19.6.2014 made in O.A.No.(II-U) 237 of 2013, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the original application till the date of the order and thereafter at 9% per annum till the date of actual payment to the respondents/claimants.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has passed the impugned award on mere surmises and conjectures, inasmuch as it has brushed aside the specific provisions under Sections 123 & 124 of the Railways Act and also failed to note that the alleged accident falls within the exceptions stated in Section 124A of the Railways Act. Adding further, he submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger when no train ticket was

seized from the body of the victim. He further submitted that in any event, the award of interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the original application till the date of award and thereafter at 9% per annum till the date of actual payment by the Tribunal is wholly erroneous, since neither the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 nor the Railways Act, 1989 make any provision for payment of interest on the award amount. On this basis, he prayed for interference with the impugned order.

4. This Court is not able to see any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in dispute that the respondents/claimants, being the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased, had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest due to the accidental falling of their son, namely, Mr.M.Sathish Kumar, who was a self-employed painter-cum-artist, on 18.11.2012 while travelling in an EMU train in connection with his work, due to overcrowding, speed and jerk of the train between Chetpet and Egmore stations and died on the spot as he suffered grievous injuries. It was also their plea that the second class journey ticket for his travel from Mambalam to Park railway station was lost and could not be traced.

Though the said claim was resisted by the appellant contending that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, that there was no eye-witness to the alleged incident, that the deceased was run over and killed while trespassing the railway line in between MSC and MS stations and that the incident occurred due to the carelessness/negligence on the part of the deceased, the Tribunal, based on the evidence let in by A.W.1 and the documents marked by him through Exs.A1 to A6, rejected the contention of the appellant in placing reliance upon Section 124-A of the Railways Act, by holding that even in the final report, Ex.

A6, after the statutory enquiry and after consideration of the opinion of the panchayatdars in the inquest report as well as the opinion of the doctor in the post mortem report, the police have recorded their findings that the deceased on 18.11.2012 prior to 20.30 hours, while travelling in any one of the trains, had accidentally fell down from the train at KM 05/19-17 up EMU line between Chetpet and Chennai Egmore, as a result of which he suffered head injury and died on the spot and treated the case as accidental death and that no contra evidence was let in by the appellant to rebut the case of the respondents/claimants. Therefore, considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the respondents/claimants, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the death of Mr.M.

trespassing the railway track. For holding so, the Tribunal has also relied upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jameela and others v. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 3705 holding that a passenger falling down from a running train while travelling on valid ticket, the fact that he was standing at open doors of compartment of running train may be a negligent act or even a rash act, but it is not a criminal act and the negligence of the passenger had no effect on liability of railways. The Tribunal has further relied upon yet another ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v.

Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, (2008) 4 MLJ 323 holding that Section 124 lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents and if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. The Tribunal also held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, since no evidence was let in by the appellant to prove that the deceased was a passenger without a ticket, although some articles were recovered, hence, the possibility of losing the journey ticket at the time of fall or after the fall cannot be ruled out. Based on the said findings, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondents/claimants, being the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased to be shared in equal proportion.

5. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as to the award of interest on the compensation amount, the Tribunal has held that though the respondents have claimed 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the application, placing reliance upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others v. Union of India and another, AIR 2009 SC 3098, it has awarded pendente lite interest at 6% per annum from 14.8.2013 till the date of the order and thereafter at 9% per annum till the date of actual payment, considering the fact that there was no delay on the part of the respondents. When the Tribunal has rendered factual findings in respect of each of the issues, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order on any of the grounds raised by the appellant. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.741 of 2016 is also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

1. The Railway Claims Tribunal Chennai Bench, Chennai.

C.M.A.No.79 of 2016 gj(CO) srg(16/02/2016)