Ambujakshan.P vs Union Of India

C. Pratheep Kumar, J

This is an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, against order dated 3.3.2016 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.33 of 2015. The appellants are the parents of deceased Ananth Krishnan, who died in an untoward incident on 1.2.2015 allegedly while falling down from a moving train at Kanhangad railway station. He was holding a valid ticket for travelling from Thrissur to Kanhangad, issued at 20.58 hours on 31.1.2015. The application filed by the appellants claiming compensation was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal on the ground that the deceased died not in an untoward incident. Aggrieved by the above order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, the appellants approached this Court raising various contentions.

According to the learned counsel for the appellants, it was a case of accidental fall and as such, an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act and the Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have allowed the application for compensation. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel Sri.Srihari Rao appearing for the Railways would argue that the deceased was attempting to deboard the train at Kanhangad railway station, where the train had no stop, and it was at that time, he fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, he would argue that it is a case of self inflicted injuries coming under the exception to Section 124A and as such, the finding of the Railway Claims Tribunal is liable to be sustained.

In this case, deceased Ananth Krishnan had a valid ticket for travelling from Trichur to Kanhangad. On 1.2.2015 at 3.30 hours it was some public who had first seen the dead body of Ananth Krishnan lying in between the railway track and platform of Kanhangad railway station. Nobody has seen the actual incident in which he sustained injuries. However, it is evident that he died due to injuries sustained from some train which run over him. The train which passed Kanhangad railway station immediately before the dead body of the deceased was noticed was Kochuveli-Bikaner express which had no stoppage at Kanhangad. It was in the above context the respondent presumed that the deceased boarded the above train from Trichur and when it reached Kanhangad, he tried to deboard the moving train which resulted in causing his death.

According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the deceased with valid ticket travelled in some other train and not in Kochuveli-Bikaner express as alleged by the respondent. While so, he somehow accidentally fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the same.

In Ext.R1 DRM report, it is stated that on 01.02.2015 at 3.30 hours, some local people informed the Station Master, Kanhangad, that a dead body of a male aged about 29 years was found lying in between the platform and the track. The matter was informed to the local police and they have registered crime No.144/2015 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Postmortem certificate shows that death was due to 'run over by train'. The finding of the local police is that the deceased had boarded into some train from Trichur to Kanhangad on 31.1.2015 and at about 3.30 hours, on 01.02.2015, while he was trying to get down at Kanhangad, fell down from train and sustained grievous injury and died at the spot. The local police treated the case as “accidental death due to falling from train” and further action was dropped.

The finding of the investigation conducted by the Railway is to the effect that the deceased boarded into train No.16312 Kochuveli – Bikaner express on 31.1.2015 from Trichur and travlled to his native place at Kanhangad. The above train had no scheduled stoppage at Kanhangad and while the train was passing through Kanhangad railway station, the deceased tried to get down at Kanhangad platform from the running train and slipped into the track, got seriously injured and died on 01.02.2015 at about 3.30 hours. Though the deceased had a valid ticket, he met with an accident due to his own act while trying to get down from a running train which is an offence under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, they concluded that the Railway is not liable to pay any compensation to the deceased.

Even according to the respondent, nobody witnessed the deceased attempting to get down from Kochuveli – Bikaner express train at Kanhangad platform. As per the report of the local police, he fell down from some train while trying to get down at Kanhangad station. In the impugned order, by relying upon the railway time table, the Tribunal held that the incident happened at around 3.19 hours at Kanhangad railway station and that the scheduled arrival time of the above train at Kasaragod is 3.40 am. As per the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondent, the dead body of the deceased was first noticed by some public at 3.30 hours.

In the reply statement the respondent only assumed that the deceased might have jumped from the train at Kanhangad railway station. They have reached such an assumption only for the reason that the dead body was noticed by some local people after Kochuveli - Bikaner express passed Kanhangad railways station. It appears that the Tribunal believed the above story and assumed that the deceased tried to alight from the moving train at Kanjangad railway station.

In the decision in Sunitha C. and others v. Union of India [2016 (4) KHC 129], the deceased Babu Rajan allegedly boarded a train from Kollam junction with a ticket for the journey to Calicut. According to the applicants, at about 10.00 pm while the deceased was washing his hands after going to the toilet, he was thrown out of the train due to violent jerking and in that incident, he sustained fatal injuries which ultimately resulted in his death. The ticket was lost in the accident. A ticket purchased for Kayamkulam to Tirur was recovered from the body. The contention of the Railways was that the passenger had fallen from train near Parappanangadi railway station which comes after Tirur. Therefore, it was contended that the deceased might have jumped or detrained from the moving train and hence, railways are not liable as the injury was self inflicted.

10.After considering the pleadings and the materials on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the deceased had a valid ticket to travel from Kayamkulam to Tirur, he was not a passenger as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 at the time of his fall from the train as Parappangadi comes after Tirur and before Kozhikode. The Tribunal also found that the victim might have detrained when it slowed down at Parappanangadi. Therefore, it was held that the act of the victim amounts to criminal negligence coming under the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

11.After analyzing various provisions and discussing various precedents, a Division Bench of this Court held in paragraph 17 as follows :-

“In the instant case, there are no eye witnesses to the incident. There is no material to hold that the deceased had any reason to jump off a moving train and to bring upon himself the fatal injuries suffered in this case. It is also not the case of the respondents that there was any attempt on the part of the deceased to commit suicide. It is also clear that an untoward incident as defined in the Railways Act had occurred in the instant case. Since Railway Claims Tribunals have been set up to consider cases of accidental death and injury in railway accidents, we are of the opinion as is fortified by the decisions of the Apex Court and the various High Courts including that of this Court, that the endeavour of the Tribunals should not be to deny compensation to victims. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the claim petition is completely unjustified.”

12.In the instant case also, there was no eye witness to the incident. Nobody has a case that the deceased had any intention to commit suicide or that he had made any such attempt to commit suicide. From the available evidence it is evident that he had fallen from a moving train at Kanhangad railway station, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. There is no evidence to conclude that he fell down while trying to move out of Kochuveli-Bikaner express train, which had no stop at Kanhangad. More over, in order to bring an incident within the purview of self inflicted injury, there should be intention on the part of the victim to cause injury to himself. Since the deceased was travelling with valid ticket from Trichur to Kanhangad and there is no evidence to show that he had an intention to inflict injury to himself or that he had any intention to commit suicide or that he was attempting to commit suicide, the only presumption that can be arrived at is that he had accidentally fallen from a moving train and as such, this is a case coming under the head “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. Therefore, the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, are entitled to get compensation provided under the provisions of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.

13.As per the schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the compensation payable for death w.e.f. 1.1.2017 is Rs.8,00,000/-. In the instant case, the incident was on 31.01.2015 and the compensation payable then was Rs.4,00,000/-. The principles to be followed for ascertaining the quantum of compensation are given by the Hon;ble Supreme court in the decisions in Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018 (2) KHC 920] and in Union of India v. Radha Yadav [ (2019) 3 SCC 410].

14.In the light of the above decisions, in this case also, the appellants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. In addition to the same, they are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the above amount from today till realization from the respondent. The respondent is directed to deposit the amount within a period of two months from today.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.