IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 03.01.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

1. Uma Maheswari

2. Subramani

3. Dhanam ... Appellants Vs.

The Union of India Owning Southern Railway rep. by its General Manager, Chennai - 600 003 ... Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23(1) of the Railway Tribunal Act to set aside the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.(II-U)97/2013 dated 28.02.2014 and allow the appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.Shivakumar for Mrs.F.Terry Chellaraja For Respondent : Mrs.T.P.Savitha, Standing Counsel for Railways

J U D G M E N T

The appellants / claimants, who are wife, father and mother respectively of the deceased, aggrieved by the order passed by the Railway Tribunal, has come forward with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The case of the appellants / claimants is that on 10.10.2012 around 14.00 hrs, the deceased person, came to Ponpadi railway station and he boarded a unit train in order to proceed to Thiruthani Railway Station with a valid train ticket. While travelling, the deceased person fell down from the running train in between Ponpadi Railway Station and Thiruthani Railway Station, due to heavy crowd in the said train and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. In consequence, a case was registered by the Arakonam Railway Police in Crime No.526 of 2012 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., The journey ticket was lost during the accident and the CMO Ward Doctor, Arakkonam Government Hospital, Arakkonam had witnessed that the deceased person as dead. Hence the appellants / claimants have filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-

[Rupees four lakhs only] .

3. In contrary, the respondent / Railways had filed a counter affidavit stating that they deny the statement of the appellants that the deceased had died in an untoward incident and the appellants have not furnished any documents to prove the same. The appellants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal with false statements and as per Divisional Manager Investigation report, the deceased had not travelled in the train from Ponpadi to Thiruttani Railway Station and that he is supposed to have committed suicide. Further, the Head constable/Arakkonam, who enquired this case had stated that the dead body was found in the centre of the track cut into two pieces and one photo of a woman, viz., deceased brother's wife was recovered during the inquest.

4. The counter of the respondent proceeds to state that the contention of the appellants was that deceased had travelled in EMU Train on 10.10.2012 at about 14.00 hrs from Ponpadi station to Thiruttani station, whereas, as per the train signal register / ponpadi railway station dated 10.10.2012, after departure of T.No.56041 Pondicherry Passenger at 6.56 hrs, there is no stopping trains at and from Ponpadi upto 18.54 hrs. The alleged incident had happened due to tress-pass or some other cause and the same do not amount to untoward incident, as there was no fall from train and the respondent contends that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

5. The Tribunal after considering the averments and counter averments on either side had framed three issues for consideration:-

'(i) Whether the deceased Nagaraj, s/o Subramani was a bonafide passenger, as alleged?

(ii) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to the deceased Nagaraj, s/o Subramani, while travelling by electric train on 10.10.2012 at about 14.00 hrs between Ponpadi and Tiruthani Railway Station at Km 81/32-34 down line and died at the spot?

(iii) Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief if any?'

6. Before the Tribunal, the wife of the deceased / 1st appellant was examined as A.W.1 and marked certain documents and on the side of the respondent, B.Kanniah, Head Constable, RPF was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on their