Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
S. Annamalai & Others - Appellants
Versus
The Union of India, Owning Southern Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Chennai - Respondent
C.M.A. Nos. 1304 & 241 of 2016
Decided On : 11-01-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : T. Raja Mohan
For the Respondent: M.T. Arunan
The burden of proving that the victim is not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways. Non-production of Railway ticket is not fatal to the claimants' case.
Headnote:
Railway Ticket - Compensation Claim - Railways Act, 1989, Section 123(c), Section 124A - The court discussed the interpretation of 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' and the liability of the Railways to pay compensation. The court emphasized that a purposive interpretation should be given to the expression and that the burden of proving that the victim is not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways. The non-production of Railway ticket was held not to be fatal to the claimants' case.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a compensation claim for the death of a passenger in a train accident. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition due to non-production of the Railway ticket by the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the burden of proving that the victim was not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways and that the non-production of Railway ticket is not fatal to the claimants' case.
Issues: Non-production of Railway ticket and the burden of proof on the Railways.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving that the victim is not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways. Non-production of Railway ticket is not fatal to the claimants' case.
Final Decision: The order of the Railway Claims Tribunal was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fixing the quantum of compensation.
1. Challenging the order passed in OA (II-U) 12/2015 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, the claimants have filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the death of one Chandrasekar.
3. According to the appellants, the deceased was a resident of Sivagangai District and he was staying at Chennai and working as a Coolie. Further, according to the appellants, the deceased used to travel by Train whenever he goes to Chennai to Devakottai and then travel by Bus. On 12.08.2014, the deceased informed his mother that he was coming home by Train from Chennai Egmore. Subsequently, the appellants came to know from the Tambaram Railway Police that prior to 09.40 hours on 13.08.2014, the deceased while travelling from Chennai Egmore to Devakottai in Rameswaram Express, due to heavy rush, jerk and jolt of the Train, had accidentally fallen down from the running Train between Pallavaram and Trisoolam Railway Stations and suffered crush injury on head and right little finger and with heavy bleeding, he died at the place of occurrence. According to the appellants, it was an untoward incident. The Second Class travel ticket purchased by the deceased for his travel was lost in the course of the accident, therefore, the same was not produced by the appellants.
4. The respondents filed their counter stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger for the reason that the appellants have not produced the Railway ticket.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, A.W.1 was examined and 7 documents, Exs. A.1 to A.7 were marked. However, on the side of the respondent/Railway, there was no oral and documentary evidence. The DRM's report was filed along with the counter of the respondent. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the available evidence, dismissed the claim petition finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger for the reason that the claimants have not produced the Railway ticket.
6. Heard Mr. T. Raja Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M.T. Arunan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
7. Mr. T. Raja Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submitted that non-production of the Train Ticket is not fatal to the case of the claimants and that the burden of proof lies on the respondent/Railway to establish that the victim was not a bona fide passenger. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is whether the non-production of the Railway ticket is fatal to the case of the claimants or not. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) 2008 (4)MLJ 323 [Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar and others], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph Nos. 12 to 15 held as follows:-
"12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647 (para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13), S. M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27 (para 12) etc.
13. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others 1995(6) SCC 326 this Court observed:
"In this connection, we may usefully turn to the decision of this Court in Workmen vs. American Express International Banking Corporation wherein Chinnappa Reddy, J. in para 4 of the Report has made the following observations:
The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words
