Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
J. Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Owning Southern Railway, Rep by its General Manager, Chennai – Respondent
C.M.A.No. 1315 of 2016
Decided On : 17-02-2021
For the Appellant :T. Raja Mohan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:C.V. Ramachandramurthy, Advocate.
Contributory negligence plays a pivotal role in determining compensation in cases of railway accidents.
Headnote:
Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Compensation - Section 23 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed for compensation after the deceased fell from a running train and died. The Railway Tribunal rejected the claim citing negligence and lack of a valid ticket.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the heavy rush in the running train and attributed contributory negligence to the Railways for not providing adequate safety measures.
Issues: The main issues were the negligence of the deceased and the Railway's responsibility for providing safety measures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere negligence or carelessness cannot be a ground to deny compensation, and contributory negligence plays a pivotal role. Only in the event of a criminal act or self-inflicted injury with an intention can be attributed against the victim as contemplated under Section 124(A) of the Railways Act.
Final Decision: The order of the Railway Claims Tribunal was set aside, and the appellant was awarded total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A (II-U) No.130 of 2015.)
The order dated 14.03.2016 passed in O.A (II-U) No.130 of 2015, is under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
2. The application seeking compensation is filed by the appellant on the ground that the deceased was a native of Kamanpatti Village of Dindigul District. In order to visit her mother house, she went to her native place. On 07.08.2014, she informed the applicant over the phone that she would come to Chennai on 08.08.2014 by train. The applicant came to know from the Egmore Railway Police that the deceased, on prior to 09.45 a.m. On 08.08.2014, while travelling in a train proceeding towards Chennai Beach Railway Station, due to over crowd, speed, jerk and jolt of the train, accidentally fell down from the running train between Kodambakkam and Nungambakkam Railway Stations, suffered grievous injury on the back of head and died at the place of occurrence. It was an untoward incident. The second class ticket purchased by the deceased for her travel from Dindigul to Chennai Egmore was said to have been lost at the time of accident and the same could not be traced by the Railway Police.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Railway Tribunal rejected the claim mainly on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and further the deceased committed an act of negligence.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Railway made a submission that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and further she was not holding a valid ticket. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in rejecting the application.
5. Perusal of the inquest report reveals that the accident occurred and the final report filed after investigation reveals that the deceased fell down from the running train on account of huge rush in the suburban train. Therefore, the untoward incident occurred on account of heavy rush in the running train. The deceased sustained shock and died due to haemorrhage because of multiple injuries. The DRM report also reveals that the deceased Indurani aged about 38 years has fallen down from an unknown EMU Train and expired on the spot, while she was travelling in an unknown EMU train between MKK and NBK Railway Stations.
6. The Railways attributed negligence against the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was a woman aged about 38 years. Large number of women employees are traveling in Metro cities including Chennai in EMU trains. After duty hours, they are forced to rush to board in EMU trains to reach their homes within a reasonable travel time. The women employees have to take care of their children and family members. Thus, the delay in reaching home would cause hardship to the working women as well as to the family members. With this pressure, more number of women/travelers are forced to trave1 by standing in EMU trains. Entry in EMU trains are broader than that of the doors in Express Trains. No doors are provided to close the entry in EMU Trains after boarding of passengers. In fact, entry passage is more broader and therefore, there is a possibility of falling down from a running train due to jerk and jolt. Adequate safety measures are not provided, more specifically, in EMU trains. Railway Authorities are bound to provide safety measures to the passengers, more specifically, working class passengers, who are all traveling on day-to-day basis and while returning back from work, they will be either tired or under pressure to reach their home quickly.
7. Large number of untoward incidents are not teaching any lesson to the Railway Authorities to formulate a scheme to improve the safety measures in EMU Trains. Very old coaches are made available for the passengers and speedy measures are not taken to provide adequa
