VARKEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in O.A.No. 13/07 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the appellants. On 20/2/2004 at 8.30 p.m Sri.Tiby George, the son of the appellants died in a train accident near Madukarai station while he was travelling in Train No.6525 Island Express from Kottayam to Bangalore. The appellants made a claim of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation. The Claims Tribunal disallowed the claim and the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the petitioners filed a review petition and the same was also dismissed with costs. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The case of the appellants was that on 20/2/2004, Sri.Tiby George, the son of the appellants, while travelling in Train No.6525 Island Express from Kottayam station to Bangalore, accidentally fell down from the train when the train reached near Madukarai station and died of the head injury sustained on him. He was a bona fide passenger holding a reserved ticket bearing No.65372085 in S9 coach. The appellants' son Sri.Tiby George was a student in Florence School of Nursing, Bangalore. As part of his studies, he had to undergo Psychiatric course for a period of six months and he was undergoing the said course at Thiruvalla Mission Psychiatric hospital. In the midst of the course, in order to appear for the examination at Bangalore, the deceased, along with other students, booked ticket from Thiruvalla to Bangalore. On 20/ 2/2004, though the ticket was booked from Thiruvalla, the deceased boarded the train from Kottayam since the, appellants were residing there. The number of the ticket in which the deceased was travelling was 65372085 and the same was valid for traveling from Thiruvalla to Bangalore. Photocopy of the ticket was produced by the appellants before the Claims Tribunal as Ext.A5. The untoward incident occurred on 20/2/2004 at 8.30 p.m and the deceased accidentally fell down near Madukarai station and died of the injuries. Thus the appellants claimed a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

(3.) The main contention of the respondent in the reply statement filed was that the deceased travelled near the door way keeping the door open and fell down due to his own careless and negligent act. In spite of warnings, the deceased travelled without precaution to safety and fell down due to his careless and negligent act and the respondent is not liable and is absolved from liability under Section 124A(b) of the Railways Act 1989. It was also contended that the inquest report and final report prepared by the police regarding the said accident in Crime No. 3 8/04 revealed that the deceased travelled in reserved coach No.9 from Thiruvalla and came to Coach No.2 to see his friends and while throwing banana skin fell down from the train. According to the respondent, the enquiry made by the railway officials revealed that the deceased did not report in S9 coach upto Madukarai station and was marked as not joined. The respondent denied that the appellants are the only dependents of the deceased.