The main legal point established in the judgment is that suspicion alone cannot be a ground for rejecting a claim petition, and exclusion clauses under Section 124-A require the establishment of intention/mens rea for invoking them.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987, against the order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.(II-U).No.261 of 2014.

The order dated 08.09.2015 passed in O.A.(II-U).No.261 of 2014 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The claimants are the appellants. The claim petition was filed on the ground that the deceased was working as an electrician and had been to Singapore on two occasions for job. On 06.03.2014, he left the house informing his father that he would go to Madurai in connection with his visa Application. He always used to travel by train purchasing second class ticket. The claimants came to know from the Police Authorities that while returning from Madurai, during night hours on 06.03.2014, when the train was proceeding between Nalli and Kovilpatti Railway Stations due to rush, speed and jerk of the train, he accidentally fell down and suffered grievous injuries and died at the place of occurrence. The F.I.R was lodged by the Village Administrative Officer of Illupaiurani Village and a case was registered at Tuticorin Railway Police Station in Crime No.10 of 2014 dated 07.03.2014. It was contended that the second class ticket purchased by the deceased for travel on 06.03.2014 from Madurai to Kovilpatti has been lost along with personal belongings. Post-mortem was conducted at Tuticorin Government Hospital. The claim petition was filed. The inquest report also reveals that the untoward incident occurred and the report further states that there was no possibility of crossing the railway track as the Railway Bridge was available. The track was 25 feet above. Therefore, the deceased had fallen down from the running train and sustained fatal injuries and died. Post-mortem report states about the appearance found at the post-mortem and the same reads as under:

“Moderately nourished body of a male. Postmortem peeling of skin noted all over the body. Marbling noted all over the body. Black colored grease and oil materials seen all over the body. Head found crushed beyond its recognition. Comminuted fracture seen over the skull and face. Brain matter not matter not found. Left arm severed in its middle. The rest of the left upper limb seen separately. Severed left upper limb matches with the left arm anatomically and by complexion indicating that they belong to same individual. Both legs almost severed in the middle. The underlying bones are fractured. The right hip almost severed. All the internal organs of pelvis exposed out. Right arm deformed and bone found fractured.”

3. The nature of the injuries reveals that it was not relatable to trespass. Relying on the said report, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants also reiterated that considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal ought to have arrived a conclusion that it is a case of fallen down from the running train. The post-mortem report was also not considered by the Tribunal.

4. The Divisional Railway Manager's report dated 18.03.2015 though relied on by the Railways, the said report states that “it is suspected that the deceased might have been killed by some train while trespassing”. Contrarily, it is a suspicion which is raised and based on such suspicion, the report was submitted. Mere suspicion is insufficient to deny compensation to the victim. Railway must establish that it is a case of trespass and consequently, falling under the exclusion clause contemplated under Section 124 (A) of the Act. In the absence of any record to show that it is a case of trespass, suspicion alone cannot be a ground to deny compensation to the victims.

5. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues and considered the nature of untoward incident occurred with reference to Section 123 of the Railways Act. However, the Tribunal made a finding that the deceased was not possessing a valid travel ticket nor any such travel ticket was retrieved from th