IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 MFA.No. 76 of 2010() ----------------------------- OA.47/2007 of RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.SUBAL J. PAUL, SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. B. RADHA, W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN.M.K, BUNGLAVIL HOUSE, EDANJIMOLLA, SASTNAVATTOM.P.O, CHIRYANKEEZHU, TVM. 2. R. RAGHI, D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN.M.K, -DO- 3. R. RENJU, D/O. LATE RAMANCHANDRAN.M.K, -DO- ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU FOR R1-3 SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ FOR R1-3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.F.A No. 76 OF 2010 ----------------------- DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST,2010 J U D G M E N T Barkath Ali, J. This appeal under Section 23 of the Indian Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 filed by Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Raiway, Chennai is directed against the judgment and award of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated June 11, 2009 in O.A No. 47/2007 awarding a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs to the applicants for the loss sustained by them on account of the death of Shri. Ramachandran M.K in an untoward incident that occurred on December 8,1998 at Trivandrum Central Railway Station. 2. The case of the respondents/applicants as testified by PW1, the first claimant before the Tribunal and as stated in the application in brief are these: M.F.A No. 76 OF 2010 2 Deceased was a season ticket holder of Indian Railways who was working as Revenue Inspector in the International Airport at Trivandrum. On December 8, 1998 at about 5.30 p.m. the deceased while getting into the train to go to Murukkumpuzha from Trivandrum Central Railway Station, fell to the yard when the train suddenly moved forward. He sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment at the hospital. Applicants are his legal heirs and dependents who filed O.A No.OAU/ERS/2007/0047 for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent. 3. Respondent in the O.A,the Railways filed a written statement denying the accident and contending that the deceased was knocked down by a shunting train while he was crossing the track at Thiruvananthapuram yard. PW1 was examined. Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the applicants. On the side of Appellant/respondent RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ext. R1 was marked. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicant was a bonafide passenger of the train in question M.F.A No. 76 OF 2010 3 and that while he was about to board the train, the train suddenly moved forward and he fell down from the train and sustained fatal injuries and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs as provided Part-I of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997. 4. The Railways have now come up in appeal challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for appellant and Respondents. 6. The following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question on the relevant date and that he died in an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act ? (ii) Whether the incident comes under any of the exemptions provided under the proviso to Sec.124A of the Act? M.F.A No. 76 OF 2010 4 7. The appellant/Respondent, the Railways contended that the deceased was knocked down by a shunting train while he was crossing the railway track. Respondent relied on Ext.A4, FIR in the criminal case and Ext.A5, Final report by Sub Inspector,Railway Police Station,Thiruvananthapuram regarding this matter wherein it is stated that the deceased was hit by a shunting train. But there are no eye witnesses to the accident. It is proved by Ext.A1 certificate issued by the Station Master, Murikkumpuzha that the deceased was a season ticket holder from Murikkumpuzha to Thiruvananthapuram, which shows that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question. PW1, in her sworn affidavit had confirmed that the Malabar Express was late at that time. It probablises the version of the applicant that the deceased might have gone to the yard to get into the train. That being so, the tribunal is justified in accepting the evidence of the applicants and holding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in M.F.A No. 76 OF 2010 5 question and that while he was getting into the train, the train suddenly moved forward, as a result of which he fell down from the train and sustained fatal injuries resulting in his death which will be an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. There is no evidence to show that the incident comes under any of the exemptions provided under the proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. Therefore the appellant, Railway is bound to pay compensation to the applicants, who are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. We have gone through the records and the judgment of the Tribunal. We find no ground to interfere with the above findings of the Tribunal. 8. Part 1 of the Schedule to the Railways Accidents and untoward incident (compensation) amendment Rules,1997 shows that the compensation in the case of death in a train accident is fixed at Rs. 4 lakhs. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs. That being so, we find that the appeal is devoid of M.F.A No. 76 OF 2010 6 any merit and the same has to be dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed. No cost. A.K.BASHEER JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE PKK