Challenging the Award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.(II-U) 182 of 2013, the Southern Railway has filed the above appeal.
2. The respondents 1 to 4 are the dependants of one T.E.Seshadri, who was working with the Southern Railways as Senior Travelling Inspector. On 26.01.2013, the deceased along with his daughter Abinaya and her friend Anuprabha, in order to attend a function at SRM College at Potheri, reached Kodambakkam Railway Station by train. When Anuprabha attempted to enter into the train, which was proceeding towards Tambaram, accidentally, she fell down and the deceased Seshadri, while attempting to save her, due to heavy rush and sudden start of the train, he too accidentally fell down and got caught in between the train and the platform. The deceased suffered injuries on his right leg, right hand and he was struggling for life. Thereafter, he was shifted to BRS Hospital, Nungambakkam for treatment. However, he died on the way to the hospital. In these circumstances, the claimants filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
3. The appellant/Southern Railways filed their counter stating that the deceased was not entitled to travel in local train using his Duty Card Pass. Further, the appellant has taken a stand that the injuries sustained by the deceased are self inflicted injuries, therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation from the Southern Railways.
4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the respondents, 2 witnesses were examined and 7 documents Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. The 1st respondent was examined as A.W.1 and Anuprabha was examined as A.W.2.
5. The claimants have established that the deceased had died due to the accident that had occurred on 26.01.2013 and the injuries were not self inflicted injuries as contended by the Railways. A.W.2 also categorically stated that the deceased had fell down from the train while trying to save her. When the deceased had died while saving A.W.2, the stand of the Railways that the injuries sustained are self inflicted cannot be accepted. If such a contention of the Railways is accepted, no person would venture into saving any 3rd party in a public place. In fact, the appellant/Railways should have given more compensation to the deceased's family. That apart, the deceased was also a Railway employee and in such circumstances, the appellant should have given more compensation to the claimants. The documents produced by the claimants clearly establish that the deceased had died only because of the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal had taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidences and rightly awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.
6. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.11.2017 Index : No Internet : Yes Speaking order va To The Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench.
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
va C.M.A.No.1670 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 23.11.2017