The Union Of India vs Sri.Shivaram
2022 Latest Caselaw 3714 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 04 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                             BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

             MFA NO.9732 OF 2013 (RCT)


BETWEEN:

The Union of Ind ia,
Represented by its General Manag er,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secund erab ad.
                                                  ...Appellant
(By Sri Ab hinay Y.T., Advocate)


AND:

1.    Sri Shivaram,
      Son of Ramu Rathod,
      Aged 54 years,

2.    Smt. Tara Bai,
      Wife of Shivaram,
      Aged 49 years,

      Both residing at Kadadur Tand a,
      Chittap ur Taluka, Gulb arg a District.
                                                ...Respondents

(By Sri Mohd. Shariff, Advocate for R1 & R2)


      This MFA is filed under Section 23 of Railway
Claims    Tribunal    Act,    ag ainst   the    ord er    dated
23.08.2013 passed in OA II U 109/2009 on the file of
the    Railway   Claims      Tribunal,   Beng aluru      Bench,
                            :: 2 ::


Beng aluru, awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-
with interest @ 6% P.A. from 26.08.2009 till the date
of filing of orig inal application and thereafter 9% P.A.
till the date of realization.


     This MFA coming on for hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:


                       JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Abhinay Y.T, learned counsel for the

appellant. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is

absent.

2. The appellant has challenged the judgment

dated 23.8.2013 passed by the Railway Claims

Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench. The facts are as

below:-

3. The respondents are the claimants being

the parents of the deceased namely Kavitha. It is

their case that Kavitha was traveling from Malkhed

to Sedam in Train No. 359 on 2.9.2008. She was

a bona fide purchaser as she had purchased a :: 3 ::

ticket. On the way, accidentally she fell down

from the moving train because of a sudden jerk

and jolt, sustained grievous multiple injuries and

at last succumbed to them. The Tribunal after

holding enquiry granted compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% from 26.8.2009,

i.e., from the date of application till the date of

judgment and 9% thereafter till realization.

4. Sri Abhinay Y.T. submits that the Tribunal

has not considered the defence put forward by the

appellant. The deceased did not possess railway

ticket and therefore she was not a bona fide

purchaser. She came under the wheels of the

train when she was crossing the track and thus the

accident occurred. The Tribunal has lost sight of

all these aspects of the matter for allowing the

claim petition. Therefore it is his submission that

this appeal deserves to be allowed.

:: 4 ::

5. I have gone through the entire records

and also the evidence. It is an admitted fact that

the deceased did not possess railway ticket, but

the father of the deceased who adduced evidence

as AW-I stated on oath that his daughter had

purchased a ticket and it was lost when she fell

down from the moving train. The actual defence

put forward by the appellant was that the

deceased might have committed suicide by coming

in contact with unknown running train or she

might have been murdered and her dead body

might have been kept on the track to make it

believe that it was accidental death due to fall

from the moving train. If the post mortem report

is perused, the possibility of these two defences

can be ruled out. If the deceased had committed

suicide, the body should have been cut into two

halves or even if she had been murdered and the

body was kept on the railway track, then also the

body should have been cut into two pieces. But :: 5 ::

the post mortem report shows multiple injuries

which could happen only when a person falls from

a moving train. This probability cannot be ruled

out. The Tribunal has held that because of rush in

the train, she might be sitting near the door and

might have fallen down because of a jolt and jerk.

On facts, the Tribunal has arrived at a right

conclusion which cannot be interfered with.

6. So far as not possessing the train ticket,

AW-I has clearly stated that his daughter was

traveling from Malkhed to Sedam, but owing to

accident, ticket might have been lost. The

Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA

vs RINA DEVI [(2019) 3 SCC 572] has held that

mere absence of ticket with injured or deceased

will not negative the claim for compensation. It is

also held that though the initial burden is on the

claimant to prove that the injured or the deceased

was a bona fide purchaser, it can be discharged by :: 6 ::

filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and then

onus will shift on the railways to rebut it. It is

held by the Tribunal that the Railways failed to

discharge its onus once the claimant filed his

affidavit stating that the ticket was lost. In this

view, the Tribunal has taken the correct view to

grant compensation in the absence of ticket. I do

not find any ground to interfere with the judgment

passed by the Tribunal. Hence, appeal is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ckl/-