The Union Of India vs P Kistaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 3935 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 08 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

            MFA NO.10937 OF 2010 (RCT)

BETWEEN:

The Union of Ind ia,
Represented by its General Manag er,
South Western Railway, Hub li.
                                            ...Appellant
(By Sri K.Patel Munegowd a, Advocate)

AND:

1.   P Kistaiah,
     Son of Late P Bhoomaiah,
     Aged about 59 years,

2.   P.Vijayalaxmi,
     Wife of P Kistaiah,
     Aged about 55 years,

     Both are R/at No.401, C Block,
     Mathrushri Ap artment,
     Behind Apollo Hospital,
     Old MLA Quarters, Hyd ergud a,
     Hyd erab ad-29.
                                         ...Respondents
(By Sri S.J.Sang hvi, Advocate)

     This MFA is filed und er Section 23 of the RCT Act
against the jud gment dated 31.08.2010 passed in
O.A.No.167/2007 on the file of the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, allowing the claim petition
for comp ensation.
                        :: 2 ::


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


                    JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by Railways questioning

the correctness of the order dated 31.08.2010

passed in O.A.167/2007 by Railway Claims

Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench.

2. The respondents are the parents of the

deceased by name P.Ramesh. The dead body of

P. Ramesh was found cut into two pieces near

Nayandahalli Railway Station at KM.No.1/100. The

petitioners stated before the tribunal in their claim

petition that on 27.12.2006 at about 7.00 p.m.,

the deceased, his father and father's driver left

Hyderabad for Bengaluru in a train. About 4.30

a.m., the train reached Dharmavaram station and

there the deceased got down for having a cup of

tea, while his father and the driver were sleeping

inside the coach. Since the train started moving

and picked up speed, the deceased could not get :: 3 ::

into the compartment and thus he missed the train

at Dharmavaram. Only his father and driver

reached Bengaluru. Deceased reached Bengaluru

by boarding another train bound to Bengaluru and

searched for his father and driver, but could not

trace them. Then the father and driver returned

to Hyderabad on 30.12.2006 under the impression

that the deceased might have returned to

Hyderabad, but the deceased had not gone back to

Hyderabad and therefore they made a complaint to

Kachiguda Railway Police on 2.1.2007 and to the

Dharmavaram Railway Police Station on

21.1.2007. Dharmavaram Railway Police asked

the father to enquire in the Railway Police Station

at Bengaluru. Accordingly the father came to

Bengaluru and when he made enquiries, he was

shown the photograph of the deceased. Then the

father came to know that his son had been killed

in a railway accident. On 3.11.2007, the father

received a letter addressed to the deceased. That :: 4 ::

letter was written by one T. Muralidhar requesting

the deceased to return the hand loan of Rs.1,000/-

that the deceased had obtained from him on

28.12.2006. After receipt of this letter, the father

contacted Muralidhar and came to know that his

son spent a night on 28.12.2006 with him and that

on the next day i.e., 29.12.2006, the deceased

went to Mysuru by boarding train No.232,

Bengaluru - Mysuru passenger. This led to filing

of claim petition before the tribunal in connection

with death of P.Ramesh.

3. The tribunal after conducting enquiry

awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the

respondents/claimants with interest and

questioning the same the railways has preferred

this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant raised

two points, firstly that the deceased was not a

bonafide purchaser, no railway ticket was found :: 5 ::

and secondly that the body of the deceased was

found cut into two pieces on the railway track. If

really he was traveling in the train and that he had

fallen from the moving the train, it was impossible

that the body would come under the wheels. The

injuries that would be caused would be of different

nature and most probably the deceased might

have come under the wheels of the train when he

was crossing the railway track. For this reason,

the railway is not liable to pay any compensation.

In support of his second point of argument, he has

placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Kamrunnissa Vs. Union of

India - (2019) 12 SCC 391. Therefore he

argued for allowing the appeal and setting aside

the order passed by the tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent argues

that the inquest panchanama clearly discloses that

body was found on the railway track. AW.2 :: 6 ::

Muralidhar has given evidence very clearly that he

saw off the deceased at the railway station. He

has also stated that the deceased purchased ticket

and boarded Bengaluru - Mysuru passenger. His

evidence is not assailed and therefore the

deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the

respondents were entitled to claim compensation

in connection with the death of their son.

6. I have considered the arguments put forth

by learned counsel for the parties. Ex.A.2 is the

inquest panchanama. It clearly shows that the

dead body was found on the railway track at

KM.No.1/100, near Nayandahalli railway station.

The dead body was cut into two pieces. So, the

death of the deceased in this manner is not

disputed even by the railways.

7. The first question is whether the deceased

was a bonafide passenger. AW.1 is the father of

the deceased and his evidence just shows that :: 7 ::

only after receiving the letter from AW.2,

Muralidhar, he came to know that his son had

traveled in a train bound to Mysuru and therefore

he suspected that his son could have been killed in

a railway accident. The entire case rests on the

evidence given by AW.2. The tribunal has believed

his evidence to be trust worthy. Given a re-look

to the evidence of AW.2, he has stated that the

deceased Ramesh was his friend and that the

latter visited his room where he was staying on

28.12.2006. The deceased stayed over night

there. AW.2 has stated what the deceased told

him about missing the train at Dharmavaram and

coming over to Bengaluru city and searching for

his father and car driver. He has further stated

that the deceased requested him to pay Rs.1,000/-

as on the next day he wanted to go to Mysuru.

Therefore he gave Rs.1,000/- to the deceased and

then took him to railway station in the morning of

29.12.2006 to see him off at the railway station.

:: 8 ::

He further stated that since the deceased did not

contact him for many months, he wrote a letter to

him requesting him to repay Rs.1,000/-.

Thereafter the father of the deceased met and told

about the death of his son in a train accident and

asked him as to what happened. In the cross-

examination he has clearly answered that on

29.12.2006, he dropped the deceased at 9.45

hours in the railway station, that the deceased

himself purchased a ticket for going to Mysuru and

a platform ticket for him. He has also stated that

he saw the deceased boarding the last

compartment. Ex.A.6 is the letter said to have

been written by AW.2 to the deceased. Perusal of

this letter shows that the deceased had borrowed

Rs.1,000/- from AW.2. But in the cross-

examination, he has stated that the signature

found in Ex.A.6 is not his signature. Therefore

referring to this answer, it was argued by the

appellant's counsel that since AW.2 disowned his :: 9 ::

signature on Ex.A.6, his testimony cannot be

believed to come to conclusion that the deceased

traveled to Mysuru on 29.12.2006.

8. If the entire evidence of AW.2 is perused,

it may be stated that merely because he has

stated that the signature in the letter is not his, it

is not possible to infer that his entire testimony is

untrustworthy. It may be a stray answer. In the

examination-in-chief, he has clearly stated to have

written a letter to the deceased and even in the

cross-examination he has answered that he wrote

a letter to the deceased during November, 2007.

Ex.A.6 bears the postal seal dated 3.11.2007. The

address found on Ex.A.6 is that of the deceased

and it is not disputed. In view of this, the

testimony of AW.2 cannot be discarded. Clear

inference can be drawn from the evidence of AW.2

that he saw the deceased boarding Bengaluru -

Mysuru passenger. So when his evidence is :: 10 ::

believable, merely for the reason that ticket was

not found, it is not possible to draw an inference

that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

In all probability the ticket might have been lost

when the accident took place.

9. The next question is with regard to

possibility of the deceased falling down from the

moving train. In the case of Kamrunnissa, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, based on the facts and

circumstances of that case came to conclusion that

the deceased therein came in contact with the

wheels while crossing the railway track. To come

to that conclusion, reliance was placed on the FIR

where it was clearly recorded that the deceased

was crossing the railway track without noticing the

train. If a person falls down from a moving train,

chances of his coming in contact with the wheels is

remote. But such an inference cannot be drawn

always. It all depends on facts and circumstances.

:: 11 ::

To say in other words, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has only found possibility of the deceased being

run over by a moving train. In this case, as the

evidence of AW.2 shows that the deceased boarded

the train, it is impossible to infer that the

deceased was run over by the moving train near

Nayandahalli while crossing the railway track and

therefore this argument of the appellants' counsel

is not possible to be accepted.

10. From the foregoing discussion, it may be

concluded that the tribunal is justified in granting

compensation to the claimants. I do not find any

good ground to interfere. Therefore appeal is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd