J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking to quash the Order passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai in

O.A.(II-U)/104, dated 16.04.2015.

2. It is the case of the appellant that on 29.08.2012 prior to 06.15 hours in order to return home from Hyderabad, the appellants son Surendar, was travelling in a train proceeding towards Chennai and accidentally fell down from the running train at Perambur Carriage Works Railway Station, due to which, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition claiming compensation before the respondent.

3. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants/claimants has filed the appeal before this Court for quashment of the award.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly, the deceased surendran died due to railway accident and the body of the deceased was found place in the Railway Track Fast line at Perambur, which clearly shows its an railway accident and occured due to untoward incident. The learned Judge has failed to note that the accident took place on 29.08.2012 but the Divisional Railway Manager's report dated 07.08.2014 has filed after lapse of three years. The report has been filed only to deny the compensation to the appellants.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Judge failed to consider that in the inquest report there is a finding that the death is not occured due to violence. The investigation officer in his report dated 29.08.2012 concluded that on 29.08.2012 prior to 6.15 hrs. While the deceased was travelling in a train towards chennai has accdentaly fell down from the running train between Perambur carriage works and Perambur Loco Works Railway Station in fast line, sustained grievious injuries on the left shoulder, fracture on the left side ribs and injury on the right leg thump and died at the place of accident. The death of the deceased was only unexpected. Hence, the Divisional Railway Manager's report and the findings of the learned judge are biased on the Divisional Railway Manager's report, which is not at all maintainable. Hence, the deceased died due to speed and jerk of the train. It was an accidental fall within the meaning of term untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The Tribunal without considering the factual position, dismissed the claim petition, which warrants interference of this

Court.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the alleged incident had occured on 29.08.2012. In the FIR, it is clearly mentioed that the Station Master, Perambur had reported that a male body aged about 40 years lying in the fast line. Therefore, the RPSSI, Perambur had registered the case in Cr.No.613 of 2012 under Section 171 Cr.P.C. And concluded the case as fallen down from the running train without enquiring any eye witness or recording any statement. The learned counsel further submitted that the accident had occured only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased as he had not taken proper care while travelling. The alleged act of the deceased due to the own negligence and carelessness. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and hence, Railways are not liable to pay the compensation under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The Tribunal, considering the factual aspects, rightly dismissed the claim petition, which does not warrant any interference.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

8. Admittedly, the appellants are the claimants. They has filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased. The Tribunal has dismissed the said petition on the ground t