IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 01.12.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.M.A.No.124 of 2020

1. J.D.Krishnan

2. J.K.Komala

3. P.Eagambal ...Appellants Vs The Union of India owning, Southern Railway, Rep. By its General Manager, Chennai – 600 003. ...Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, to set aside the judgment dated 24.07.2018 made in O.A.(II -U) No.172 of 2017 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

For Appellants : Mr.R.Sekaran For Respondent : Mr.M.Vijay Anand

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.(II -U)

https://www.mhc.tn.goNv.ion/.ju1d7is2 of 2017 dated 24.07.2018.

2. It is the case of the appellants that on 14.09.2016 when the deceased Venkatesh was travelling in the Avadi-Chennai train, due to over crowding, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train in between Avadi and Annanur, which resulted in sustaining grievous injuries in head and the deceased died during the course of shifting him from G.H. Avadi to Kilpauk Govt. Medical College and Hospital. Thereafter, the claimants, who are the dependents of the deceased, filed a claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- before the Railway Claims Tribunal under various heads. After contest, the Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the petition on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and was not in possession of a valid train ticket. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this appeal before this Court for quashment of the impugned award.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that admittedly, the deceased died due to the injuries sutained by him in the above said railway accident. He further submits that, the claim of the appellants was rejected solely on the ground that the two police officials who accompanied the deceased to the hospital immediately after the accident deposed that they collected a xerox copy of the ration card, mobile number and small papers from the purse and pocket of the deceased and no money or valid travelling authority was recovered from the deceased and thereby, the Railway Tribunal held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and also based on the AR copy, in which it is stated that the deceased/patient was drowsy and had “alcoholic smell”, which is perverse. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the Inquest report reveals that the ticket/traveling authority for 14.09.2016 i.e., the date of accident was recovered from the pant pocket of the deceased, which is more than sufficient to hold that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, which was not properly adjudicated by the Tribunal. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the deposition of the police officials who accompanied the deceased to the hospital immediately after the accident does not reveal anything with regard to recovery of any articles from his pant pockets and they have only stated that they recovered xerox copy of ration card, some small papers from his purse and pocket and there were no valuable items, money or any traveling authority, and there was no clarity with regard to whether any material was recovered from the pant pocket of the deceased. Further, though the Railway Tribunal, by relying upon the accident register have held that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident, however, the post-mortem report did not reveal any intake of alcohol by the deceased and when there is no mention in the postmortem report with regard to consumption of alcohol by the deceased, the post-mortem report ought to form the basis for adjudicating the presence of alcohol and the AR copy cannot be said to be a substantive evidence negating the post-mortem certificate. It is the further submission of the learned counsel t