AMBUJAKSHAN P. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, against order dtd. 3/3/2016 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.33 of 2015. The appellants are the parents of deceased Ananth Krishnan, who died in an untoward incident on 1/2/2015 allegedly while falling down from a moving train at Kanhangad railway station. He was holding a valid ticket for travelling from Thrissur to Kanhangad, issued at 20.58 hours on 31/1/2015. The application filed by the appellants claiming compensation was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal on the ground that the deceased died not in an untoward incident. Aggrieved by the above order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, the appellants approached this Court raising various contentions.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the appellants, it was a case of accidental fall and as such, an untoward incident as defined under Sec. 123(c) of the Railways Act and the Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have allowed the application for compensation. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel Sri.Srihari Rao appearing for the Railways would argue that the deceased was attempting to deboard the train at Kanhangad railway station, where the train had no stop, and it was at that time, he fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, he would argue that it is a case of self inflicted injuries coming under the exception to Sec. 124A and as such, the finding of the Railway Claims Tribunal is liable to be sustained.

(3.) In this case, deceased Ananth Krishnan had a valid ticket for travelling from Trichur to Kanhangad. On 1/2/2015 at 3.30 hours it was some public who had first seen the dead body of Ananth Krishnan lying in between the railway track and platform of Kanhangad railway station. Nobody has seen the actual incident in which he sustained injuries. However, it is evident that he died due to injuries sustained from some train which run over him. The train which passed Kanhangad railway station immediately before the dead body of the deceased was noticed was Kochuveli-Bikaner express which had no stoppage at Kanhangad. It was in the above context the respondent presumed that the deceased boarded the above train from Trichur and when it reached Kanhangad, he tried to deboard the moving train which resulted in causing his death.