The court established the principle of strict liability and the concept of self-inflicted injury in railway accidents, emphasizing the burden of proof and the definition of a passenger.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 23 of Railways Claims Tribunal Act, against the judgment dated 28.01.2016 and made in O.A.(II-U) 223/2014 on the file of the Railway Tribunal, Chennai Bench and allow the same.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 28.01.2016 in O.A.(II-U) 223/2014, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

2. O.A.(II-U) 223/2014 had been filed by the appellants herein under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 r/w. Section 123 (c) (2) and 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 seeking a claim of Rs.4,00,000/- which sum has been enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- in view of the amendment to the statute together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition together with costs as compensation for the unfortunate death of Abaraniji, who was the husband the first claimant and the father of the 2nd claimant and the son of the 3rd and 4th claimants and who, while traveling in an electric train from Tambaram to Madras Beach on 21.10.2013 at 05.55 p.m., due to over crowd accidentally fell down from the running train in the platform at Guindy Railway station and sustained head injuries. He was taken in the same train with the help of the Guard and was detrained at Kodambakkam Railway station, where, the staff of 108 ambulance declared him dead.

3. The claimants produced the tickets bearing No.416651602 from Villupuram to Tambaram and ticket No.433578733 from Tambaram to Beach.

4. Claiming compensation in their capacity as legal representatives and dependents, the claim petition was filed.

5. The respondent Union of India owning Southern Railway represented by its General Manager filed counter denying and disputing the facts stated. They claimed that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that, he had trespassed into the Railway Track and got injured. He was sent to the Government Hospital for further treatment by the same train, but he was detrained at Kodambakkam, since his relatives wanted to take him to a private hospital for treatment, but the staff of the ambulance declared him dead. It was stated that it was a case of trespass and therefore, the respondent sought dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The Tribunal, during the course of trial, marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 in terms of Rule 15-B of Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 and four issues were taken up for consideration, namely,

(i) whether the applicants are the only dependants of the deceased?

(ii) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?

(iii) whether there was any untoward incident on 21.10.2013 as defined under Section 123 (c ) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989? And

(iv) finally whether the applicants are entitled for compensation?

7. The first appellant examined herself as AW1 and marked the copies of the First Information Report, inquest report, final report and the tickets as Ex.A4 to Ex.A7.

8. With respect to the first issue, namely, whether the applicants are the only legal heirs/dependants of the deceased, the Tribunal had examined the legal heirship certificate, which has been produced and also a marriage invitation card and had come to the conclusion that the applicants are the dependants of the deceased.

9. With respect to the other issues, which were taken up together viz., whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger, whether there was any untoward incident on 21.10.2013 and whether the applicants are entitled for compensation, the Tribunal first examined the statement of the Station Master, who stated that the deceased had trespassed into the railway track and got injured by the electric train going from Tambaram to Madras Beach and that he was sent to the Government Hospital for further treatment but that he was detrained at Kodambakkam by the Guard, since the relatives of the victim wanted to take him to a private hospital for treatment and that the staff of the 108 Ambulance declared him died.

10. It was also s