UNION OF INDIA Vs. KRISHNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Samishankar along with his wife Krishnammal, their son Saravanan and his brother-in-law Panchavarnam was travelling from Dadar to Madras on 22.9.1990 in Dadar Express. After the train left Renigunta Railway Station, Samishankar went to the toilet, where a sharp rusted iron plate protruding from the toilet wall struck him, as a result of which, he sustained bleeding injury on the neck and later succumbed to the same, giving rise to claim petition as O.A. No. 93 of 1995 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

(2.) Before the Tribunal, the Railways contended, inter alia, that the claim petition is barred by limitation; that the incident in question is neither an 'accident' nor an 'untoward incident', as defined under sections 123 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and in that view, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal, while condoning the delay in preferring the claim petition, after rendering a finding that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of claim petition, however, dismissed the petition holding that the incident is neither an accident nor an untoward incident as defined under the Act and being a tortious liability incurred by the Railways, relegated the parties to the civil court for redressal of their grievances.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Claims Tribunal, claimants- respondents herein preferred C.M.A. No. 911 of 1999 before this court, which came to be allowed as per the judgment impugned in this L.P.A. The learned single Judge, while allowing the C.M.A. and setting aside the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal, directed the appellant Railways to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation to the respondents as per the rules framed under Railways Act with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Hence, this L.P.A. by the Railways.