IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 MFA.No. 237 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OA (IIu)/12/2008 of RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT IN O.A ----------------- UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANTS IN O.A -------------------- 1. K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN THAMBI, RESIDING AT RAM NIVAS, THOTTATHUVILA, MURIATHOTTAM, PARASSALA P.O., KERALA. 2. K.VILASINI, W/O.K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT RAM NIVAS, THOTTATHUVILA, MURIATHOTTAM, PARASSALA P.O., KERALA. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ------------------------------- M.F.A.No. 237 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an appeal filed by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railways, who was the respondent before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in O.A (II U) 12/2008. 2. The application was filed under Section 16 of the Railways Act, seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs from the Railways, for the death of one Anoob, aged 24, allegedly in an untoward incident. It was contended by the applicants that their son, who was working with System Net Engineers and also studying for B.Tech at Trivandrum, boarded Train No.728 Madurai bound Passenger Train from Trivandrum, in order to go there for treatment; that his father Sri.Ramachandran Nair was also to accompany him and intended to board the train from Parasala, MFA.No.237 of 2009 2 for which accommodation was reserved by the above train; that when the train reached Parasala, the deceased who was standing near the door of the compartment accidentally fell down to the track, sustained serious injuries to his head and succumbed to it and died in the Medical College Hospital where he was admitted for treatment. 3. The appellant Railways denied the the accident as a result of any fall from the train. According to them, the deceased was found lying with injuries near the track and police registered a case. It was further contended that the accident occurred as a result of any hit and run over by the train while trespassing the track and also that no journey ticket was produced to prove that he was a bona fide passenger. 4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues based on the evidence adduced, viz., the oral testimony of PW.1 and Exts.A1 to A9 marked on the side of the applicants, and proceeded to decided the issues. MFA.No.237 of 2009 3 5. The Tribunal found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that the deceased died due to untoward incident; that the applicants are the only dependants of the deceased, and in such circumstances, Railways is liable to pay compensation of an amount of Rs.4 lakhs, as directed. Hence, this appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended before us that in the absence of journey ticket, there was absolutely no evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train and the inquest report also shows that the death was as a result of hit and run by the train. 7. We have considered the submission. The Tribunal found that merely because the ticket could not be traced out from the spot of the incident by the people who rescued him, it cannot be concluded that the deceased passenger was travelling without ticket. In this case, the journey was a programmed one and the tickets have been booked well in advance, and therefore, it was presumed that the deceased MFA.No.237 of 2009 4 passenger might have purchased ticket to cover his journey from Trivandrum Central to Parassala also. As a matter of fact, this finding that the journey was a programmed one and accommodation were reserved in advance was beyond challenge. If so, the burden to prove that the reserved traveller did not travel in the train lies on the railways, since that is a matter which can be easily proved by producing the chart signed by the TTR, in case, the ticket was cancelled and issued to any other passenger in that train. In so far as the best evidence has been withheld from the Court and in the light of the finding that this was a programmed journey and tickets have been booked earlier, non-production of the ticket is of no consequence and the finding rendered by the Tribunal, in such circumstances, does not call for any interference. No other point arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal fails, and is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.