Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Smt Nagalakshmi @ Lakshmi on 10 January, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
MFA No. 7164 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7164 OF 2017 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI 580020.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. SMT NAGALAKSHMI @ LAKSHMI
signed by C WIFE OF LATE N RAMAKRISHNA
MALATHI NO.13, 2ND MAIN ROAD
AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT
Location: SANJAYNAGAR
High Court BENGALURU 560034.
of Karnataka
2. SUMANA
D/O LATE N. RAMAKRISHNA
NO.13, 2ND MAIN ROAD
AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT
SANJAYNAGAR
BENGALURU 560034.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M R HIREMATHAD., ADVOCATE)
-2-
MFA No. 7164 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE
RAILWAYS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 02.02.2017 PASSED IN OA II U 211/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
BENCH, ALLOWING THE CLAIMS PETITION.
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 02.02.2017 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal') in O.A.II U 211/2013
whereby the application is allowed awarding compensation
of Rs.8.00 lakhs with interest.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.06.2012
the deceased N.Ramakrishna having accompanied by
Nataraj, purchased second class railway journey ticket to
travel from Hosur to Yeshwanthpur and boarded the
general compartment in Train No.56241 - Salem to
Yeshwanthpur passenger train, accidentally fell down from
MFA No. 7164 of 2017
the moving train due to rush and jolt of the said train and
grievously injured and he has been shifted to M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital for treatment. During the treatment in the
hospital, he succumbed to the injuries.
3. The applicants are wife and daughter of the
deceased. They filed an application before the Tribunal.
On service of notice, the appellant herein - Union of India
has filed the reply statement denying the allegations made
in the application and has taken a specific contention that
the deceased person was not a bonafide passenger and
there was no ticket found from the deceased to prove that
he was traveling in the said train. On considering the
pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the
Tribunal has allowed the application and awarded statutory
compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs with interest. Being
aggrieved by the same, the Union of India has field this
appeal.
MFA No. 7164 of 2017
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, admittedly, no ticket was found from the
body of the deceased and there was no eyewitness to
prove the alleged untoward incidence. In the absence of
any credible evidence regarding the deceased being a
passenger in the train, the Tribunal has erred in coming to
the conclusion that the death of the deceased is due to the
accident, i.e., fall from the train.
Secondly, as per the information memo submitted by
the police, as per Ex.A3, it was a case of hit and run. In
view of the above, the finding of the Tribunal that the
deceased was a passenger is contrary to the materials
available on record.
Thirdly, as per the explanation (ii) to Section 124-A,
a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling,
by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid
platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward
MFA No. 7164 of 2017
incident also included as a passenger. In this case,
admittedly, no ticket was recovered from the deceased.
Under these circumstances, the application filed by the
applicants itself is not maintainable. Hence, he sought for
allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
applicants has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the respondent has admitted that the
deceased fell from the train.
Secondly, as per Ex.R1 it is very clear that as per the
'B' report submitted by the police the death is due to
accidental injury.
Thirdly, when the passenger was traveling in the
train it has to be presumed that he is a bonafide
passenger. In support of his contention, he has relied on
the judgment of this Court in the case of MAHABOOB
SAB AND ANOTHER vs. UNION OF INDIA, SOUTH-
MFA No. 7164 of 2017
WESTERN RAILWAYS, HUBLI reported in 2011 (2)
Kar.L.J.98. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the judgment and award and the
original records.
7. The case of the applicants is that the deceased
N.Ramakrishna having accompanied by Nataraj, purchased
second class railway journey ticket to travel from Hosur to
Yeshwanthpur and boarded the general compartment in
Train No.56241 - Salem to Yeshwanthpur Passenger train,
accidentally fell down from the moving train due to rush
and jolt of the said train and grievously injured and he
has been shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital for treatment.
During the treatment in the hospital he succumbed to the
injuries.
8. The respondent in its evidence has admitted that
the deceased fell from the train. As per Ex.R1 - in the 'B'
report which is submitted by the police to the court on
MFA No. 7164 of 2017
14.09.2012 it is stated that 'case is closed as accidental
death'.
9. In view of the above, it is very clear that the
deceased was traveling in the train No.56241 - Salem -
Yeshwanthpur Passenger on 27.06.2012. It is also very
clear from the above document that he fell down from the
train and suffered injuries and he succumbed to the
injuries.
10. It is not in dispute that no document was
recovered from the body of the deceased. It was admitted
that the deceased was traveling in the train and he fell
down and suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
He has to be held as a bonafide passenger until and unless
it is rebutted by the respondent to show otherwise. This
view is fortified by this Court in the case of MAHABOOB
SAB (supra) wherein this Court held as hereinbelow:
" 8. Mr. Raghupathy, learned Counsel
appearing for respondents would contend that
MFA No. 7164 of 2017
initial burden by claimants have not been
discharged to demonstrate that deceased was
traveling as a valid passenger by holding a valid
ticket. Though this argument looks attractive, it
cannot be accepted for simple and obvious
reason that in a situation where a person who
falls from train and suffers multiple injuries and
is shifted to an hospital on an emergent basis
cannot be expected to retain the ticket, which
he would have purchased and to further expect
the claimants who are none other than parents
of deceased to establish this fact that in fact
deceased had purchased the ticket. On the
other hand, it is necessary to observe at this
juncture that a person who is traveling in a
train is deemed to have been purchased the
ticket and is traveling as a valid passenger until
and unless it is rebutted by respondent to show
otherwise. In the absence of this fact, this
Court cannot accept the arguments of learned
counsel appearing for respondent. In view of
the above finding, order of the Tribunal on
issue Nos. 1 and 2 is liable to be set aside and
accordingly, it is set aside."
MFA No. 7164 of 2017
11. In view of the above, the Tribunal has rightly
held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and after
considering the evidence of the parties has rightly
awarded the compensation There is no error in the
judgment passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to
the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CM
