CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. Union of India,owning Southern Railway

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 30-4-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. VENKATARAMANC.M.A.No.748 of 2001 1. Mrs.V.Gurulakshmi2. Mrs.T.Venkataramani .. Appellants/Applicantsvs.Union of India,owning Southern Railway,rep. by its General Manager,Chennai 600 003. .. Respondent/RespondentsCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23(1) of theRailway Claims Tribunal Act against the order dated 28.3.2001 made inO.A.No.7 of 2000on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, ChennaiBench. For Appellants : Mr.T.RajamohanFor Respondent : Mr.V.G.SureshkumarJUDGMENTThe claimants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, ChennaiBench have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the orderpassed in O.A.No.7 of 2000 dated 28.3.2001. The Southern Railway is therespondent in this appeal.2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of thepresent appeal are as follows:-(a) One Viswanathan, husband of the first appellant and fatherof the second appellant, was travelling from Kovilpatti to Tirunelveli.On 6.3.1999, he boarded Madurai-Tuticorin local passenger No.729 inorder to proceed to Tirunelveli. He had to change over to a connectingtrain at Maniachi Junction. He was standing at the entrance of thetrain and he was pushed by the alighting passengers and due to jerk ofthe train, he accidentally fell between the train and the platform whilestopping at Maniachi Junction. His right leg was crushed before thetrain came to a halt. Immediately, he has been rendered medical aid andsent to Tirunelveli for treatment by the guard of the train. He wasoriginally brought to Tirunelveli and admitted in Ortho-Surgical Ward of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tirunelveli Government Medical College Hospital where he was inpatientfor two days. Later, he was discharged and admitted in a privatehospital, i.e., Devaki Hospital, Tirunelveli, on 8.3.1999. Ontreatment, it was found that the injury was grievous warrantingamputation of his right leg below knee. Later, he suffered renalfailure by reason of injury suffered in the accident. For specialisedtreatment, he was discharged from Devaki Hospital and admitted in KidneyCare Centre, Tirunelveli on 15.3.1999 and was inpatient till 2.5.1999.It was diagnosed that by reason of injury which he suffered in theaccident, he developed renal failure due to shock/septicemia. He alsosuffered cirrhosis of liver resulting in jaundice. Hence, he has beenadvised kidney transplantation. However, before such treatment could begiven, he died on 7.7.1999. The claimants/appellants filed the claimapplication stating that the death was directly attributable to theinjuries sustained by the deceased in the rail accident which occurredon 6.3.1999. (b) Reply statement has been filed on behalf of the Railway.In the reply statement it has been stated that the accident is due tothe rash and negligent act of the deceased and the respondent is notliable to pay any compensation under Section 124-A(b) of the RailwaysAct, 1989. Further, it has been averred that there is no evidence thatthe death of the deceased was due to the injuries that he suffered dueto the falling from the train. (c) The Railway Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:-(1) Whether the applicants prove that the deceasedS.Viswanathan sustained injuries and later on died in anuntoward incident on 6.3.1999 while travelling by MaduraiTuticorin local passenger No.729?(2) Whether the respondent proves that theapplicants are not entitled to any relief for the reasonsset out in paras 2 and 3 of the Reply Statement?(3) Whether the respondent proves that the deceasedwas not bona fide passenger of Train No.729 Madurai-Tuticorin local passenger on 6.3.1999?(4) What order?(d) On issue No.1, it has been held that the death of thedeceased is not directly attributable due to injuries sustained in theaccident as claimed by the appellants. On issue No.2, it has been heldthat the respondent has not adduced any evidence to substantiate itsdefence and therefore, it came to the conclusion that the respondentfailed to prove the said issue. On issue No.3, the Tribunal has heldthat the respondent has not produced any oral or documentary evidence,whereas the appellants have produced Ex.A-6 season ticket and thedocuments produced on the side of the appellant would be sufficient toanswer issue No.3 in favour of the appellants. On issue No.4, theTribunal found that the appellants are entitled to compensation of onlyRs.1,20,000/-. The said order is challenged by the claimants in thepresent appeal.3. Mr.T.Rajamohan, the learned counsel appearing for theappellants, contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding only a sum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Rs.1,20,000/-, as against the claim of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.Further, the learned counsel submitted that the death of S.Viswanathanis directly attributable to the injuries sustained by him in theaccident due to spreading of infection resulting in septicemia, shockand renal failure and this fact has been overlooked by the Tribunal.The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal failed toappreciate the expert evidence adduced by A.W.2 Dr.Balasubramaniam,Nephrologist, who treated the deceased for septicemia, shock and renalfailure. Thus, the sum and substance of the argument of the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants is that the Railway Claims Tribunalwithout considering the claim of the appellants, has awarded only a sumof Rs.1,20,000/-.4. Per contra, Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar, the learned counselappearing for the respondent, contended that the Tribunal has consideredthat the death of the deceased was not directly attributable to theinjuries sustained by the deceased in the accident and hence, awardedjust and reasonable compensation of a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- which neednot be revised or modified. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for theappellants and the respondent.6. The Railway Claim Tribunal has clearly held that therespondent has not proved that the appellants are not entitled to anyrelief in view of the accident that took place on 6.3.1999. TheTribunal further found that Ex.A-6 season ticket, which is not disputedby the respondent, will amply prove that the deceased was travelling inthe passenger train No.729 Madurai-Tuticorin local passenger on 6.3.1999and that he has suffered injuries in the accident and later died.Further, the Tribunal has held that the appellant is entitled to a sumof Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation. 7. No appeal has been preferred by the respondent-Railwaysquestioning the said finding. Hence, the respondent-Railways cannot beallowed to urge that the accident has not been taken place in the manneras spoken to by the claimants.8. As regards the enhancement of compensation claimed by theappellants through this appeal, it has to be seen whether they areentitled for enhanced compensation. It is an admitted case that thedeceased was being brought to Tirunelveli and admitted in Ortho-SurgicalWard of Tirunelveli Government Medical College Hospital and he has takentreatment for 2 days. Later, he was discharged and admitted in DevakiHospital on 8.3.1999 and it was found that the injury was grievouswarranting amputation of right leg below knee. It was also found thatthe deceased had suffered renal failure by reason of injury suffered inthe accident. For specialised treatment, he was discharged from DevakiHospital and admitted in Kidney Care Centre, Tirunveli on 15.3.1999. Itis seen that the Doctor therein diagnosed that the deceased haddeveloped renal failure due to shock/septicemia and he had also sufferedcirrhosis of liver resulting in jaundice. Hence, he has been advised for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ kidney transplantation and before the same could be done, he died on7.7.1999.9. The Chief Doctor of Kidney Care Centre,Dr.J.Balasubramaniam, has been examined as A.W.2, he deposed about theseriousness of the disease septicemia resulting in renal failure.Septicemia is a disease of systemic illness caused by spread of microbesor their toxins via blood stream. In this connection, the learnedcounsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the passage in thebook "PRINCIPLES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE" by HARRISON wherein the authorhas defined the nature and seriousness of the disease 'septicemia' asfollows:-"The host's reaction to invading microbes involves arapidly amplifying polyphony of signals and responsesthat may spread beyond the invaded tissue. Fever orhypo-thermia, tachypnea, and tachycardia often herald theonset of sepsis, the systemic inflammatory response tomicrobial invasion. When counterregulatory controlmechanisms are overwhelmed, often as the microbe movesfrom a local site to invade the bloodstream, homeostasismay fail, and dysfunction of major organs may supervene(severe sepsis). Further failure of counterregulatorycontrol leads to septic shock, which is characterized byhypotension as well as organ dysfunction. As sepsisprogresses to septic shock, the risk of dying increasessubstantially. Early sepsis is usually reversible,whereas patients with septic shock often succumb despiteaggressive theraphy."10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants hasfurther drawn my attention to the passage in the book "PATHOLOGIC BASISOF DISEASE" by ROBBINS wherein the author has discussed the seriousnessof the disease 'shock' which reads as follows:-"Shock, commonly called circulatory collapse, maydevelop following any serious assault on the body'shomeostasis, such as profuse hemorrhage, severe trauma,extensive burns, large myocardial infarction, massivepulmonary embolism, or bacterial sepsis. Whatever theclinical provocation, at the most fundamental levelshock constitutes widespread hypoperfusion of tissuesdue to reduction in the blood volume or cardiac output,or redistribution of blood, resulting in an inadequateeffective circulating volume."In the said book at page 118, the author has given a chart how an injuryresulting in infection can lead to shock and thereafter multiple organfailure and lastly to death. Even A.W.2 Dr.J.Balasubramaniam,Nephrologist who treated the deceased, has opined that shock andsepticemia can ultimately lead to multiple organ failure. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. It has to be seen that the first appellant in her swornaffidavit has stated that during his life time, the deceased was haleand healthy and before the accident, he did not have any kidney problem.Further, it is apparently evident on record that the deceased who hadsuffered crush of right leg in the untoward incident which lead toamputation of right leg below knee and spreading of infection furtherresulting in septicemia, shock and renal failure and ultimately, thedeath of the deceased is directly attributable to the injuries sustainedby him in the rail accident which took place on 6.3.1999. 12. Further, it has to be seen that in the claim application,the appellants have clearly stated as follows:-"It was diagnosed that by reason of injury which he hadsuffered in the accident, the deceased had developedrenal failure due to shock/septicemia. He had alsosuffered a cirrhosis of liver resulting in jaundice.The doctors of the centre who treated the deceasedadvised that in view of the renal failure and cirrhosisof liver, the deceased would not live longer and thereis no scope for further treatment other than the kidneytransplantation. However, before such a treatment couldbe given, he died on 7.7.1999. The death was directlyattributable to the injuries sustained by the deceasedin the rail accident which occurred on 6.3.1999."13. In the reply statement, no specific denial has been madewith regard to the above statements made in the claim application. Inparagraph 2, it has been averred as follows:-"The respondent submit that the deceased while alightingfrom the running Train No.729 was run over by the train atManiachi Junction on 6.3.1999 and injured in the right legonly. The respondent submit that the passenger trainNo.729 in which the deceased travelled stops sufficienttime for de-training and entraining of passenger.Therefore, this incident is due to the rash and negligentact of the deceased. Hence, the respondent is not liableto pay any compensation under Section 124(A)(b) of theRailways Act 1989. The respondent further submits thatthe deceased who sustained injury at Maniachi Junction wastaken to the hospital at Tirunelveli and was given thetreatment only for the right leg and other treatment wasgiven necessitated for the deceased due to the injurysustained for falling from train, the deceased wasdischarged from hospital on 8.3.1999. Therefore, it isevident that the death of the deceased was not due to theinjury sustained for falling from train."14. The said reply statement will amply prove that there is nodenial with regard to the fact that due to the injury sustained by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deceased in the accident, he had developed renal failure due to shockand septicemia. Further, there is no denial about the fact that thedeceased suffered cirrhosis of liver resulting in jaundice. The abovenarration of facts will clearly show that the deceased was a bona fidepassenger holding a valid season ticket for travel and that his death isdirectly attributable to the injuries sustained by him in the railaccident which occurred on 6.3.1999 and hence, the appellants areentitled to compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Railway ClaimsTribunal, Chennai Bench without considering those aspects has held thatthe death of deceased was not directly attributable to the injuriessustained by him in the accident as claimed by the appellants andawarded only a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-.15. In the result, the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal,Chennai Bench made in O.A.No.7 of 2000 dated 28.3.2001 is modified tothe effect that the appellants will be entitled to compensation of a sumof Rs.4,00,000/- and not Rs.1,20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. TheCivil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrardppTo1. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench. 2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.T.Rajamohan, Advocate, SR.29890.1 cc To Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar, Advocate, SR.30273. C.M.A.No.748 of 2001 MBS(CO)RVL 09.05.2007