SHAMEEMUNISSA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 07.12.2009 made in O.A.No.2009 00093 dismissing the claim application filed by the appellant herein claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 for the death of her son Aejaz Ebraheem. The appellant herein had preferred the claim application before the Tribunal and the same was taken on file as O.A.No.2009 00093. She had alleged in the claim application that the deceased Aejaz Ebraheem employed as Urdu teacher in Edapadi M.C.School in Kenthil, Salem, possessed a season ticket for traveling between Salem Railway Junction and Jolarpet Railway Junction; that as usual on 13.02.2009, he travelled in the general compartment of Kovai express bearing Train No.2676 from Salem to Jolarpet; that due to heavy crowd, he had to travel standing near the footboard in the General Compartment and that while the train was crossing Thirupathur Railway Station, he accidentally fell down due to Jerk and due to heavy crowd in the train, as a result of which he died on the spot. Describing the said occurrence as an untoward incident coming within the description of the of the said term found in Section 123 (c)(ii) of the Railways Act, 1989, the appellant had made the claim for compensation.

(2.) The claim made by the appellant before the Tribunal was resisted by the respondent contending that the claim of the appellant herein/applicant was solely based on the inquest report; that the accident did not happen as projected by the appellant herein in her claim application; that the death of the son of the appellant would have occurred in some other incident other than a fall from the running train and that hence the Union of India owning the Southern Railway (respondent herein) was not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant herein under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. In addition, the respondent had also contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as the ticket held by the deceased, according to the respondent, did not authorize him to travel in Super Fast Trains.

(3.) The Tribunal, after enquiry, held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger holding a valid season ticket. However, it held that the deceased, having his residence at that relevant point of time at Thirupathur, in all probability, would have attempted to get down from the running train when the said train was passing through Thirupathur Railway Station, as it had no stoppage at Thirupathur and that hence the death of the deceased was due to his own criminal act of getting down from the running train in which event the respondent would not be liable to pay compensation. Based on the said finding, the Tribunal held that the respondent was absolved from its liability to pay compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. In line with the said finding of the Tribunal, it dismissed the claim application made by the appellant herein by the impugned order dated 07.12.2009. Aggrieved by and challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant herein has brought forth this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.