Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Smt. Shantavva on 1 August, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26833
MFA No. 6288 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6288 OF 2016 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI-580020. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHANTAVVA
WIFE OF RAVINDRA KHODNAPUR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NO.6, SPS CHURCH VINAYAK NAGAR
BENGALURU-45.
Digitally signed
by 2. SMT. LAXMI
DHANALAKSHMI WIFE OF PRAKASH KAULAGUD
MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
Location: High 2704, LAXMI NAGAR
Court of
Karnataka MACCHE TALUK, BELAGAUM-04.
3. SRI. SHANKAR
SON OF RAVINDRA KHODNAPUR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
NO.6, SPS CHURCH VINAYAK NAGAR
BENGALURU-45. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K G SHANTHARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 )
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26833
MFA No. 6288 of 2016
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL 1987, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DATED:9.6.2016 PASSED IN OA II U 043/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,00,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION TILL
THIS DATE AND THEREAFTER @ 9% P.A TILL ITS
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') has been filed by the Union of India being aggrieved
by the judgment and award dated 09.06.2016 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal') in O.A.II U 943/2014
whereby the application is allowed awarding compensation
of Rs.4.00 lakhs with interest.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2013
the deceased Ravindra with a view to go to Belgaum went
to Ghataprabha Railway Station in the afternoon along
with one Sunil and the said Sunil purchased the journey
ticket to travel in Haripriya Express from Ghataprabha to
NC: 2023:KHC:26833
MFA No. 6288 of 2016
Belgaum and handed over the tickets to the deceased.
When the train was about to leave, the deceased while
boarding the train suddenly slipped and accidentally fell
down from the said train. As a result, he sustained
grievous injuries and died at the spot.
3. The applicants are the wife and children of the
deceased. They filed an application under Section 16 of
the Act before the Tribunal. On service of summons, the
appellant herein - Union of India appeared through
counsel and filed the written statement denying the
allegations made in the application and has taken a
specific contention that the deceased tried to board the
moving train, risked himself and died and hence, sought
for dismissal of the application.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal has framed the following issues:
(i) Whether there was any untoward
incident as is defined under the provisions of
Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989?
NC: 2023:KHC:26833
MFA No. 6288 of 2016
(ii) Whether the deceased was a bonafide
passenger?
(iii) Whether the applicants are
dependents of the deceased?
(iv) Whether the applicants are entitled
for any relief and interest as prayed for in the
application?
5. In support of their claim, applicants have
examined the son of the deceased as AW1 and Sunil,
brother-in-law of the deceased as AW2 and got marked
the documents as Exs.A1 to A15. The respondent
examined the Mail Express Guard, SWR as RW1 and got
marked documents as Exs. R1 and R2. On appreciation of
the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed
the application and awarded compensation of Rs.4.00
lakhs with interest. Being aggrieved by the same, the
Union of India has filed this appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has contended that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger, he was not traveling in the train. He boarded
NC: 2023:KHC:26833
MFA No. 6288 of 2016
the moving train and invited risk himself, fell down and
succumbed to the injuries. Since it is a self-inflicted
injury, in view of Section 124-A of the Act, the applicants
are not entitled for compensation.
7. Secondly, he contended that AW2 Sunil is an
interested witness. He is the relative of the deceased, his
evidence cannot be relied upon. Since the ticket is not
found with the deceased, he cannot be considered as a
bonafide passenger, therefore, the applicants are not
entitled to any compensation. But the Tribunal has erred
in allowing the application. Hence, he sought for allowing
the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/applicants contended that it is very clear from
the evidence of AW2 that the deceased purchased the
railway ticket to travel from Ghataprabha to Belgaum.
AW2 has specifically stated that the deceased was carrying
the ticket. Even RW1 has admitted that the deceased was
NC: 2023:KHC:26833
MFA No. 6288 of 2016
boarding Haripriya Express. Therefore, it is very clear that
the deceased was a bonafide passenger..
9. Secondly, he contended that police have also
registered FIR and filed the charge sheet against the
driver. Since the deceased fell down from the train due to
rush, when there is no negligence on the part of the
deceased, it cannot be considered as a self-inflicted injury.
In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA vs.
RINA DEVI reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties. Perused the judgment and award and the original
records.
11. The case of the applicants is that on 20.10.2013,
the deceased Ravindra in order to go to Belgaum
purchased the ticket at Ghataprabha railways station to
travel in Haripriya Express. The applicants have examined
one Sunil as AW2 who, in his evidence has categorically
stated that he purchased the ticket and handed over the
NC: 2023:KHC:26833
MFA No. 6288 of 2016
ticket to the deceased and he has specifically stated that
when the deceased was climbing the train he fell down and
suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries. He
categorically admits that deceased was boarding the
Haripriya Express and fell down from the train.
Considering the evidence of AW2 and RW1 and considering
the materials available on record, i.e., FIR, charge sheet,
it is very clear that Ravindra was a bonafide passenger
and the trial court has rightly answered the issue that the
deceased was a bonafide passenger.
12. Even the Apex Court in the case of RINA DEVI
(supra) has held as follows:
"20. From the judgments cited at the Bar
we do not see any conflict on the applicability of
the principle of strict liability. Sections 124 and
Section 124A provide that compensation is
payable whether or not there has been
wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the
railway administration in the case of an
accident or in the case of an 'untoward
incident'. Only exceptions are those provided
NC: 2023:KHC:26833
MFA No. 6288 of 2016
under proviso to Section 124A. In Union of
India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar it was held
that Section 124A lays down strict liability or no
fault liability in case of railway accidents. Where
principle of strict liability applies, proof of
negligence is not required. This principle has
been reiterated in Jameela vs. Union of India."
13. In view of the above, there is no error or
illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly,
appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to
the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CM
