WA No. 1350 of 2007 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Feb 2009
- Bench
- B KOSHY, P BHAVADASAN
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Railways Act, 1989 s. 124A
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): (1ST PETITIONER IN WP(C): --------------------------------------------------------------- PHILOMINA, D/O. THRESSIAMMA, AGED 47 YEARS, KALLUMKULAM HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., S.N.PURAM, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN IA NO. 484/2007 IN W.A NO. 1350/2007. DISMISSED 06/02/2009. SD/- J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. / TRUE COPY / PS TO JUDGE. Tga J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & P.BHAVADASAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.1350 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated 6th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J . The writ petitioners are the wife and son of a Railway Porter who died in an accident occurred at the Alwaye Railway Station on 3.3.2003. According to them, while pulling a trolley along with other porters, the trolley hit a stone in the Railway platform and on account of the impact he was thrown to the railway track on which a goods train was passing.
The two legs of that porter beneath the waist were cut off and he lost his fingers on the hand. Even though he was taken to the Hospital at Alwaye and later to the General Hospital, Ernakulam, he succumbed to the injuries on the very same day. His wife and son filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal which was rejected as not maintainable even without an order preventing them from filing statutory appeal. Therefore, they filed the writ petition for compensation. Learned Judge took a beneficial interpretation of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and directed the Railways to pay compensation. The Learned Judge also noticed that the accident was an untoward incident and compensation is payable under section 124A. It is also stated that W.A.1530/2007 2 when a passenger and even a platform ticket holder is entitled to compensation for injury and death in an untoward incident, a licenced porter's position is more than that because he was allowed to enter into the platform by licence.
Operative part
Petitioners also have a case that all the similarly placed porters were later given regular employment in the Railway. It is also submitted that after the writ petition was disposed of, the only son of that porter also died at the young age. Considering the wider nature of the provisions of Section 124A and on the facts of this case, we are of the view that no interference is required in an intra-court appeal and a technical interpretation is not necessary. However, we leave the question open in an appropriate case to be decided. On the facts of this case, no interference is required in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Railways Act, 1989 — s. 124A.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 06 Feb 2009. The bench was B KOSHY, P BHAVADASAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.