Smt. Sanu Joji, Sri Chacko Paily, and Smt. Chinnamma Chacko v Union of India

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD.J** **WEDNESDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018/2ND KARTHIKA, 1940** ## **MFA.No. 103 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27-03-2018 IN O.A(IIu)ERS/28/2017 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:** - **1 SMT.SANU JOJI,AGED 27 YEARS,W/O.LATE JOJI JACOB, KUZHIKKATTUMALIL HOUSE, PALAMATTOM, PERUMANNUR, THATTEKKAD P.O., KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-696 681.** - **2 SRI.CHACKO PAILY @ PAILY CHACKO, AGED 76 YEARS, KUZHIKKATTUMALIL HOUSE, PALAMATTOM, PERUMANNUR, THATTEKKAD P.O., KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-696 681.** - **3 SMT.CHINNAMMA CHACKO, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O PAILY CHACKO, KUZHIKKATTUMALIL HOUSE, PALAMATTOM, PERUMANNUR, THATTEKKAD P.O., KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-696 681. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN** **SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-600 006** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SANTHOSH JOSE, SC, RAILWAYS** **THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MFA.No. 103 of 2018** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** Appellants are the claimants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. They approached the Tribunal with an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short, the Act of 1987). 1[st] appellant is the wife and appellants 2 & 3 are the parents of deceased Joji Jacob, who died on 11-2-2016 in an untoward incident happened on the platform of Railway Station, Aluva. Deceased Joji Jacob was working abroad as Welder. He came to native place on leave. On 11-2-2016, the deceased accompanied his cousins Paul Mathew and Binoy to see them off to Calcutta in Shalimar Express (Train No.22641) from Aluva Railway Station. Deceased, along with the passengers, arrived at the Railway Station at about 9.00 p.m. on 11-2-2016. The train arrived at 9.45 p.m. on platform No.3. There was a heavy rush of passengers on the platform hurrying to board the train. Stopping time of the train at Aluva Station was only for one minute. Paul Mathew and Binoy boarded the train. Due to heavy rush and commotion by the passengers while boarding the train, the deceased accidentally fell down on the platform on slipping his legs **MFA.No. 103 of 2018** **3** and he was pushed down in between the train and platform. In the meanwhile, the train started moving and it ran over causing death of Joji Jacob. Although the deceased was taken to District Hospital, Aluva immediately, he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was having a valid platform ticket, which is produced and marked before the Tribunal. Ext.A2 is the electronic reservation slip showing that Paul Mathew and Binoy travelled in the above train on the fateful day. Ext.A3 is the postmortem certificate showing that Joji Jacob died due to multiple injuries. Ext.A4 is the relationship certificate issued by the Village Officer concerned, showing the relationship between the appellants and deceased. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the Railway opposed the claim by contending that the deceased jumped out of a moving train and fell down. In that process he sustained serious injuries as the moving train had dragged his body to end of the platform No.3. It is the further case of the respondent Railway that the deceased boarded the train unauthorizedly as he was holding only a platform ticket at the time of the untoward incident. It is therefore vehemently contended by the counsel that the appellants are not entitled to get any compensation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the **MFA.No. 103 of 2018** **4** ## learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Railway. 4. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was having only a platform ticket at the time of incident. There are rival versions in respect of the incident. The appellants would contend that the deceased was having a valid platform ticket authorizing him to enter the platform at the time of accident and he did not enter the train. Records would show that he had gone to the Railway Station to see off his cousins. It is the definite version in the application as well as at the time of testimony of AW-1, that the deceased did not enter the train on the strength of a platform ticket. AW-1 deposed that the deceased was standing on the platform and due to thronging of persons on the platform, and also due to the fact that the train stopped at Aluva Station for only one minute, a large group of persons assembled on the platform engaged themselves in push and pull, which caused the fall of the deceased. It is a common case that the deceased, after falling down, was caught in between the platform and train, and suddenly the train started moving, which resulted in his fatal injuries. 5. Testimony of AW-1, that the deceased never entered the train, could not be discredited in cross examination. Even though the report by the DRM of the respondent Railway would indicate that the deceased jumped out of a moving train, no evidence was **MFA.No. 103 of 2018** **5** adduced by the respondent to establish that contention. That apart, the testimony of AW-1 remains credible even after cross examination. Therefore, the factual contentions raised by the appellants, that the deceased did not enter the train with a platform ticket that he was pushed down by the crowd on to the platform and that he fell in between the platform and train, have to be accepted. 6. In this context, it is relevant to note certain provisions of the Railways Act 1989 (in short, the Act of 1989) and the Act of 1987. The expression “passenger” is defined in section 2(29) of the Act of 1989 as follows: “Passenger” means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. 7. Chapter XIII of the Act of 1989 deals with liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123(c) defines an “untoward incident” in the following terms: ## (c) “untoward incident” means- - (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,1987 (28 of 1987); or **MFA.No. 103 of 2018** **6** - (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or ## (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; - (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 8. On a reading of Section 123(c)(2), It can be seen that an untoward incident means the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. In this context, if we refer to the definition of passenger in Section 2(29), it can be seen that a passenger means the person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. It is therefore clear that a person holding a platform ticket cannot be regarded as a passenger entitled to claim compensation in respect of an untoward incident, as defined under the Act of 1989. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the Railway relied on certain provisions of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual Volume I, which regulates the issuance of platform tickets. Rule 248 reads are as follows: **MFA.No. 103 of 2018** **7** **Issuance of platform tickets:** Persons other than bonafide passengers seeking entry to station platforms for the purpose of receiving or seeing off friends and relatives, should be issued platform tickets, where stocked, on recovery of the prescribed charges. For the purpose of indicating the time of issue, the platform tickets are printed with hours of the day in even figures from 2 to 24. At the time of issue, besides dating the ticket as required in para 242, the Booking Clerk should also score out in ink, the material time of issue so that the ticket may be available for 2 hours from that time (see para 218). For example, if a ticket is issued between any time after 6 hours but upto 8 hours, the figure 8 printed on the ticket should be scored out (as shown on the specimen below), so that the platform ticket will be valid upto 10 hours on that date. Rule 302 is also relevant for our purpose: A platform ticket or platform pass/permit does not entitle the holder to remain in any carriage or compartment. It is therefore clear that holder of a platform ticket cannot be regarded as a passenger entitled to claim compensation, if he happens to fall from a moving train. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the Railway relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in **Puttamani and Others v.** **MFA.No. 103 of 2018** **8** **Union of India [AIR 2010 Kar 109],** wherein a learned Judge has considered the question and held that a platform ticket holder is not entitled to get compensation. 11. It has been repeatedly held by this Court and the Supreme Court that the Act of 1987 is a beneficial piece of legislation and has to be interpreted liberally. In this case, it has been established by evidence, that the deceased did not board the train with a platform ticket and he did not fall from the train, as alleged by the respondent. The FIR registered by Police and the final report submitted by the investigating officer would also show that the deceased fell down on the platform due to heavy rush and he was trapped in between the platform and the train. Therefore, factually the deceased died due to an untoward incident and therefore the appellants are entitled to get compensation. In this view, it has to be found that the decision taken by the Tribunal is legally incorrect. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. An amount of Rs.4 lakhs is awarded as compensation as per the schedule provided under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which was prevailing at the time of the untoward incident. The amount shall be disbursed to the appellants within one month **MFA.No. 103 of 2018** **9** from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. **Sd/-** **A.HARIPRASAD** mpm **JUDGE**