UNION OF INDIA BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY Vs. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 16.4.2009 made in OA. No. 128/2007 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ - as compensation to the claimant/2nd Respondent herein. The claimant filed the above said claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of her son by name K. Sundaramurthy. It was pleaded that on 12.8.2005 at about 22.00 hours, the deceased, who was a handicapped person, in order to proceed to Chennai to attend the Independence Day Celebrations, wanted to purchase a ticket with concession. However, as he did not carry the required certificate, he was denied concession ticket and he purchased an ordinary ticket. When the deceased attempted to board the train, as he was handicapped, he slipped down and met with the accident in the same train. His body was cut off and he died instantaneously at KM -270/7 -8. It is further stated that he was carrying substantial cash for his travel and his personal belongings and the ticket purchased by him was lost and could not be traced. The claimant came to know about the said facts from the Police Authorities.

(2.) THE Appellant in the reply statement opposed the claim made by the claimant. It was stated that the deceased was not a 'bona fide passenger' and he fell down from the train on account of his own negligence and carelessness. When the deceased attempted to board the moving train, he being handicapped run over by the train and died. Therefore, the accident is due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased and it would not attract the provisions of 'accidental falling from train' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the Act). The deliberate action of the deceased would tantamount to 'self -inflicted injury' under Section 124(A) (b) of the Act.

(3.) MR . T.S. Rajamohan, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that no ticket was recovered from the deceased and the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was a 'bona fide passenger' on the relevant date is not supported by any evidence. He would submit that the claimant had no personal knowledge about the facts and the statements made in the claim application appear to be hearsay. It was denied that the deceased was having a valid ticket for travelling and that the accident occurred only on account of the negligence and carelessness of the deceased, as he deliberately tried to board the moving train. The learned counsel would further submit that the deceased was rash, negligent and deliberate in boarding the moving train, which would tantamount to 'self -inflicted injury' and the Tribunal committed an error in not considering above said aspects and in awarding compensation to the claimant.