Kerala High Court Directs Railway Claims Tribunal To Annex Details Of Evidence, Witnesses To All Its Orders

In an exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Kerala High Court recently directed the Railway Claims Tribunal to follow Rules 181 of the Civil Rules of Practice so as to incorporate proper appendices to all its orders.Justice S. Manu observed that the Tribunal's judgments generally do not contain any attachment showing the witnesses examined and documents marked and due to this, there is difficulty in understanding whether the documents on records were marked or not. The Court also points to situations, where the Tribunal's judgments refer to documents that are not marked in evidence, leading to confusion.Considering this, the Court directed:“Though there is no specific provision in the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 regarding attaching the details of witnesses examined and documents marked to the judgments, it is desirable to add the same to all judgments issued by the Tribunal… Rule 134 of the Criminal Rules of Practice in Kerala provides for annexing such details to the judgments of the criminal courts. Rule 181 (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice in Kerala is the identical provision applicable to civil courts… Though there is no similar statutory provision applicable to the Railway Claims Tribunal, in view of the issues noted above it is appropriate to direct the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench to incorporate proper appendices to all judgments.”The Court also noticed that the Tribunal violated provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 in marking the documents by marking the proof affidavits of the witnesses as exhibits.Referring to Rules 14 and 15C, which respectively deal with filing of affidavit and marking of documents, the Court pointed out that only the documents filed by the parties must be marked and this does not include proof affidavits. The Court then directed the Tribunal to strictly adhere to the provisions of the 1989 Rules. The appeal before the Court was preferred by a young TV journalist challenging the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam bench. His case was that while he was travelling from Kerala to Delhi via train, he sustained injuries in an accident while at Surat Railway Station. He had to undergo amputation of both legs and other serious injuries. Claiming compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs, he had approached the Tribunal.The appellant examined himself as a witness and produced documentary evidence. The Railway examined the guard of the train as its witness. Additionally, Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report, CCTV visuals were also marked in evidence.The Tribunal noticed from the CCTV visuals and other evidence that the appellant got down at Surat Station and thereafter, attempted to board the moving train. While doing so, he fell down between the train and the platform, and was injured.Considering the evidence, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to compensation since the injuries were self-inflicted and also, since he concocted a story, approaching the Tribunal with unclean hands.The Court, while considering the appeal, remarked that the appellant attempted to twisted facts. Though this usually would disentitle a person from getting reliefs from a judicial forum, the Court felt that since this was a case under the beneficial provisions of Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989, there should be liberal interpretation and approach.Relying on the Apex Court decisions in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & others (2008), the Court came to the conclusion that Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant's injuries were self-inflicted since he accidentally fell down while trying to enter a train.Thus, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and awarded compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs to the appellant as per the schedule to Railway Accidents and Untoward accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.Case No: M.F.A.(RCT) No. 20 of 2024Case Title: Sidharth K. Bhattathiri v. Union Of India Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 4Counsel for the petitioner: Adhil P., Muhammed Ibrahim Abdul Samad, Shabeer Ali MohamedCounsel for the respondent: A.R. Gangadas - Senior Panel CounselClick to Read/Download Order

Kerala High Court Directs Railway Claims Tribunal To Annex Details Of Evidence, Witnesses To All Its Orders

K. Salma Jennath

Tags