High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-11-08Appeal allowed; Tribunal’s award set aside; com...

Rathi Rajesh v Union of India

Case / Petition Number:MFA (RCT) No.98 of 2016

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sathish Ninan, J.
Judgment Date: 2023-11-08
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The Tribunal’s award is set aside; the claimant is entitled to Rs 8,00,000 as compensation. The respondent must deposit the amount within one month. The first claimant may withdraw one‑third of the amount; the remaining shares of claimants 2 and 3 (minors) shall be kept in fixed deposits in a Nationalized Bank. The Tribunal may disburse further sums if warranted.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; Tribunal’s award set aside; compensation fixed at Rs 8,00,000; deposit within one month; one‑third withdrawal by first claimant; minors’ shares fixed in bank deposits.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rathi Rajesh
Aparna
Karthik

Respondents

Union of India

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Anil S. Raj
• S. Sudheer
• Anila Peter
• K.N. Rajani
• Radhika Rajasekharan P.

Counsels for Respondents

• P.K. Ramkumar, SC, Railways
• P.R. Sreejith

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment deals with an appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of a compensation claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, arising from the death of Rajesh Kumar in March 2014 while travelling from Kannur to Chengannur. The appellants—wife and children of the deceased—contend that the decedent was a bonafide passenger with a valid ticket and that the Tribunal erred in treating the death as a self‑inflicted fall from a moving train, rather than as an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The Tribunal relied on Ext. R1 (Rough Journey Book) and Ext. R2 (a report stating the deceased “jumped from moving train”), and RW1’s testimony that the deceased appeared intoxicated; however, the medical report did not corroborate intoxication, and the earliest information to authorities described a fall. The High Court found the deceased to be a bonafide passenger and rejected the Tribunal’s inference of jumping, noting the initial statements and the reliability of contemporaneous records. Consequently, it held the death qualified as an untoward incident. On compensation, pre‑amendment Rs 4 lakh versus amended Rs 8 lakh was considered; applying settled law, the Court awarded Rs 8 lakh. The respondent was directed to deposit within one month; one‑third to be withdrawn by the first claimant; minors’ shares to be fixed deposited in a Nationalized Bank, with scope for further disbursal if warranted.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal ActSection 123(c)(2) of the Railways ActSection 124(A) of the Railways Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants argued that Rajesh Kumar was a bonafide passenger with a valid ticket and that there is no reliable evidence of intoxication. The initial information to authorities described a fall from the train, not a jump, and the first statements are more trustworthy than later reports. The Tribunal’s reliance on the assertion of jumping and on RW1’s intoxication claim is improper. The compensation should be determined by the higher of the pre‑amendment Rs 4 lakhs and the amended Rs 8 lakhs, citing Jayamohan R.C. v. Union of India (2021) KHC 4916 and Union of India v. Rina Devi (SC) and Union of India v. Radha Yadav (SC). Therefore, the appeal should be allowed and compensation fixed at Rs 8 lakhs with appropriate deposit and disbursal for minors.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the decedent jumped from a moving train upon sighting GRP, with RW1’s testimony suggesting intoxication. Ext. R1 and Ext. R2 record Jumping and the first information indicating a fall is superseded by the eye‑witness thereafter. The medical report does not support intoxication, but the overall evidence supports that the death occurred due to a self‑inflicted act rather than an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Consequently, the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim should be sustained and the compensation not enhanced beyond the pre‑amendment amount.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jayamohan R.C. and another v. Union of India	2021 KHC 4916	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that the higher amount under the amended schedule should be payable where it exceeds the pre‑amendment amount.
Union of India v. Rina Devi	2018 ACJ 1441 (SC)	Positive	Cited as authority that the claimant is entitled to the higher of pre‑ or post‑amendment compensation where applicable.
Union of India v. Radha Yadav	2019 ACJ 1132 (SC)	Positive	Cited in the same proportional context to justify the enhanced compensation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Rathi Rajesh v Union of India and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945 MFA (RCT) NO. 98 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.07.2016 IN OA(II-U)/ERS/2014/0049 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** **-----** ## **APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:** 1 RATHI RAJESH, AGED 32,WIFE OF LATE SRI. RAJESH KUMAR, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, THIRUVANVANDOOR, CHENGANNUR, KERALA. 2 APARNA, AGED 11, DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. RAJESH KUMAR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND RATHI RAJESH. 3 KARTHIK, AGED 2, SON OF LATE SRI. RAJESH KUMAR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND RATHI RAJESH. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ S. SUDHEER SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** UNION OF INDIA. REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-3. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR, SC, RAILWAYS P.R.SREEJITH THIS MFA (RCT) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **SATHISH NINAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. (RCT) No.98 of 2016** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8[th] day of November, 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** The dismissal of the claim petition for compensation filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is challenged by the applicants. 2. The applicants are the wife and children of late Rajesh Kumar. According to the applicants, Rajesh Kumar died on account of an accidental fall from Train No.16348 in the night intervening on 15.03.2014 and 16.03.2014 while he was travelling from Kannur to Chengannur. 3. The respondent admitted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train. It was contended that, as witnessed by the Travel Ticket Examiner (TTE), the deceased was in an intoxicated state and had jumped out of the train on seeing the GRP personnel. M.F.A.(RCT) No.98 of 2016 -: 2 :- 4. On the side of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as PW1 and a fellow traveller of the deceased was examined as PW2. The TTE was examined as RW1. 5. The Tribunal found that the victim was a bonafide passenger in the train. However, it was found that the death was consequent on he jumping out from the running train and is a self inflicted injury and does not fall within the definition of “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Accordingly the claim was dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel on either side. 7. To find that the deceased jumped out of the train, the Tribunal relied on Ext.R1 the Rough Journey Book maintained by RW1 the TTE, and Ext.R2 report dated 16.03.2014 given by him to the Division Commercial Manager, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein the cause of M.F.A.(RCT) No.98 of 2016 -: 3 :- incident was stated as “jumped from moving train”. Ext.R2 is the report given by RW1 to the Divisional Commercial Manager on 16.03.2014 on his arrival at Thiruvananthapuram. Therein also he has stated that the deceased seemed to be under intoxication and that he jumped out of the moving train. 8. Though according to RW1, the deceased appeared to be in an intoxicated state, the medical report does not indicate so. There is no material to find that the deceased was in an intoxicated state. 9. In Ext.R1 Rough Journey Book maintained by RW1, it has been noted that the incident was reported to the Commercial Controller at 1.00 a.m. on 16.03.2014. In the chief examination of RW1 also he has reiterated the same. Based on such intimation, the Commercial Controller had prepared a report wherein it is recorded that, the TTE Sri.Anish had reported that the deceased M.F.A.(RCT) No.98 of 2016 -: 4 :- has fallen down from the train. This was the first information regarding the incident, that was reported by RW1. The first statement given by him before the authorities was that the deceased fell down from the train and not that the deceased had jumped off the train. The said statement made immediately after the incident at 1.00 a.m. in the morning has much reliability and trustworthiness than the subsequent statements and reports. 10. RW1 is the only eye witness to the incident. His claim that the deceased appeared to be in an intoxicated state has been found to be not acceptable. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bonafide passenger traveling with a valid ticket. There was no reason why he should jump off the train on seeing GRP personnel as alleged by RW1. So also the first statement made by him immediately after the incident described the M.F.A.(RCT) No.98 of 2016 -: 5 :- incident as a fall from the train. The Tribunal has failed to consider the above aspects. 11. It is proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that he died out of an untoward incident. The judgment of the Tribunal is thus liable to be interfered with. 12. Coming to the claim for compensation, the claim was for Rupees four lakhs. The claim was made based on the schedule of compensation payable under Section 124(A) of the Railways Act. Though the incident occurred in the year 2014, and the OA was filed in 2014, pending the OA, the schedule was amended in December, 2016 enhancing the amount from ` 4 lakhs to ` 8 lakhs. It is settled that, if the compensation payable for the untoward incident as per the pre-amended schedule with interest thereon is less than the amount prescribed under the amended schedule, then the claimant will be M.F.A.(RCT) No.98 of 2016 -: 6 :- entitled to the higher of the two amounts. (See _**Jayamohan R.C. and another v. Union of India 2021 KHC 4916**_ , _**Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2018 ACJ 1441 (SC), Union of India v. Radha Yadav 2019 ACJ 1132(SC)**_ ). It is not in dispute that while calculating interest on the pre-amended scheduled amount of ` 4 lakhs, the amount payable would approximately be ` 8 lakhs. ` 8 lakhs is the amount under the amended schedule. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation of ` 8 lakhs. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is set aside. An award is passed declaring that the applicants/claimants are entitled for compensation of ` 8 lakhs. The compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondent within a period of one month from today. The first claimant is permitted to withdraw one third of the compensation amount. Since claimants 2 and 3 are minors, the remaining amount, M.F.A.(RCT) No.98 of 2016 -: 7 :- being the shares of claimants 2 and 3, shall be maintained in a fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank. Needless to say that, if circumstances warrant, it shall be open for the claimants to move the Tribunal for disbursal of further amounts from the compensation amount awarded. Sd/- **SATHISH NINAN JUDGE** kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge