Karnataka High Court

Chinnappa vs Union Of India on 13 January, 2023

Bench: H T Prasad

                                           -1-
                                                     MFA No. 5560 of 2015




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                       BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
               MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5560 OF 2015 (RCT)


               BETWEEN:

               1.    CHINNAPPA
                     S/O LATE DODDAGUMPU VENKATAPPA,
                     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
                     OCC: AGRICULTURAL COOLIE
                     RESIDENTS OF MANGAPURA-VILLAGE,
                     MALUR TALLUK,
                     KOLAR DISTRICT

               2.    SMT. PARVATHAMMA
                     W/O CHINNAPPA
                     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                     HOME MAKER
Digitally signed     RESIDENTS OF MANGAPURA-VILLAGE,
by
DHANALAKSHMI         MALUR TALLUK,
MURTHY               KOLAR DISTRICT
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
                                                            ...APPELLANTS

               (BY SRI. M R HIREMATHAD., ADVOCATE)

               AND:

               1.    UNION OF INDIA
                     REPRESENTED BY
                     THE GENERAL MANAGER
                              -2-
                                        MFA No. 5560 of 2015




    SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAYS,
    HUBLI

                                              ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T., ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED18.09.2014 PASSED IN OA II U 27/2013 ON THE FILE
OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, AT
BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 16 OF
THE RAILWAY CLAIM ACT, R/W SEC.124-A OF RAILWAYS ACT

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 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 applicant challenging the

judgment and decree dated 18.09.2014 passed by the

Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Tribunal') in OA II U 27/2013 whereby the application filed

by the applicant has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of the convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

MFA No. 5560 of 2015

3. Brief facts of the case is that on 10.12.2012,

the deceased - Ravikumar M C, son of the applicant had

left the home to go to Bengaluru and he had boarded the

train at Malur Railway Station, being a bonafide passenger

by holding a valid season ticket. There was a heavy crowd

in the train. On the way of journey, he fell down

accidentally near Kilometer No.315/400-500 and sustained

grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

4. The applicant, who is the father of the deceased

had filed the claim petition under Section 16 of the Act.

To prove his case, he has examined himself as AW-1 and

produced 13 documents. On the behalf of the respondent,

no witness was examined but marked one document. On

the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the

Tribunal has dismissed the application. Being aggrieved

by the same, the appellant is before this Court in this

appeal.

MFA No. 5560 of 2015

5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant

has contended that the deceased was boarded the train at

Malur Railway Station being a bonafide passenger by

holding a valid season ticket. Due to heavy crowd in the

train, he fell down and suffered grievous injuries and

succumbed to the injuries. Immediately after the accident,

the complaint has been lodged. The Police have registered

a FIR against the railway authority. After investigation,

the Police have filed the charge sheet. It is very clear that

the deceased was traveling in the train and while

traveling, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to the injuries. Even AW-1 has categorically

stated that the deceased was boarded the train at Malur

being a bonafide passenger holding valid season ticket.

Even in the cross-examination of AW-1, the respondent

has suggested that the deceased was standing near the

door. The said suggestion has been denied. Therefore, it is

clear that he was traveling as a bonafide passenger and he

fell down from the train. The Tribunal has wrongly held

MFA No. 5560 of 2015

that the applicant has failed to discharge his burden. This

finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the material available

on record.

He further contended that once the appellant has

proved that there was death due to untoward incident of

bonafide passenger, the burden is shifted on the railway

authority to rebut the same. In support of his contention,

he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case

of LAXMAVVA AND OTHERS vs. THE UNION OF INDIA in

MFA No.102826/2014 (RCT) disposed of on 13.12.2017.

Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent has contended that even though the

deceased was holding a monthly season ticket and Identity

Card issued by the railway authority for his daily travel,

there was no corroborate evidence to suggest that the

deceased was traveled in the rain on the date of the

MFA No. 5560 of 2015

accident. He further contended that to make a false claim,

they have implanted the railway ticket.

He further contended that as per the Police records

and the evidence of the parties, it is very clear that the

dead body was found on the railway track and it is not a

accidental death. As this case come under genre of "self-

inflicted injury" as is referred under the exception of

Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Hence he sought

for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the judgment and original record.

8. The case of the applicant is that on 10.12.2012,

the deceased - Ravikumar M C, son of the applicant was

boarded the train at Malur Railway Station being a

bonafide passenger by holding a valid season ticket. Due

to heavy crowd in the train, he fell down accidentally and

sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

Immediately after the accident, the complaint has been

MFA No. 5560 of 2015

lodged against railway authority. The Police have

registered a FIR. After thorough investigation, the Police

have filed the charge sheet stating that the deceased while

traveling in the train accidentally fell down and suffered

injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The applicant

examined himself as AW-1. In his evidence, he has

categorically stated that while deceased was traveling in

the train as a bonafide passenger holding valid season

ticket, fell down and suffered injuries and succumbed to

the injuries. Even in the cross-examination of AW-1, the

respondent has suggested that the deceased was standing

near the door which was denied. He has discharged his

burden by saying that the death is untoward incident of a

bonafide passenger. Even this Court in

MFA No.102826/2014 disposed of on 13.12.2017 has held

as follows:

"19. Relying on the above said judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Union of India Vs. Hari Narayan Gupta and Another case reported in AIR

MFA No. 5560 of 2015

2007 Rajasthan 38, the Rajasthan High Court also held that in the case of an untoward incident falling under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, where the death of the passenger has occurred due to accidental fall from train and where the claimants may not know whether the deceased had purchased a valid ticket or not, since the railway has means through which they can easily prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, the burden of proof lies on the Railway Administration to lead evidence and to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

20. In the instant case also, the same analogy can be drawn keeping in view the object of the Railways Act, 1989 which is a social welfare legislation and particularly of Chapter XIII in it and considering penal provision under Chapter XV of the same Act, where under Section 137 makes it an offence to travel in a passenger train without a valid ticket and that the railways got machineries to supervise and get check ticket less passenger or travelers, it has to be held that in the instant case the Railway Administration has failed to establish that the deceased Laxman was a ticket less traveler, as such, it has to be presumed that

MFA No. 5560 of 2015

the deceased was a bonafide passenger falling within the scope of explanation (ii) to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989."

In view of the above, it is for the railway authority to

rebut the evidence. The Tribunal has erred in holding that

the applicant has not discharged his burden and on that

ground, it has dismissed the claim petition. The finding of

the Tribunal is contrary to the material available on record.

Under these circumstances, the matter requires to be

remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after

giving opportunity to both the parties to establish their

case.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated