Karnataka High Court
Sri Govinda vs The Union Of India on 12 June, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20013
MFA No. 5772 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5772 OF 2016 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI GOVINDA
S/O. LATE SUBBEGOWDA @ SUBBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO. 142, 2ND CROSS,
NEAR KALLAMMA THAYEE TEMPLE,
HINAKAL, MYSORE-570 006.
2. SRI NAGARAJ
S/O. LATE SUBBEGOWDA @ SUBBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.1072,
KODANGIKOPPALU,
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T 3. SMT. CHANNAMMA
Location: HIGH W/O. NAGANNA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
R/AT ARASIKERE TOWN,
SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577 201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N. &
SRI JAGADISH G., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20013
MFA No. 5772 of 2016
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBLI-580 020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.23(1) OF THE RAILWAYS CLAIM
TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.11.2015 PASSED ON OA II U 161/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION AS PER
FINDINGS AND SPEAKING ORDER.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging
the dismissal of claim petition filed by the claimants in O.A. II U
161/2011 dated 17.11.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Member
Judicial before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench at
Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the Tribunal is that Smt. Mariyamma alleged to have
died in an untoward incident on 19.08.2011. In the claim
petition, it is stated that the applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons
NC: 2023:KHC:20013
MFA No. 5772 of 2016
of the deceased and applicant No.3 is the daughter of the
deceased. It is contended that deceased Smt. Mariyamma
boarded Shivamogga-Mysuru train at Holenarasipura railway
station to go to Mysuru at about 5.30 p.m. While she was
going in the above said train, she accidentally fell down from
moving train in between Sagarakatte and K.R. Nagar railway
stations at K.M.No.24/600-700 at bridge No.264 due to heavy
rush in the train. The train ran over her and caused grievous
injuries over her head and all over the body. The Sagarakatte
railway Station Master noticed the dead body and intimated the
same to Railway Police, Mysuru. The dead body was shifted to
Government Medical College, Mysuru on 20.08.2011 and after
PM examination, the body was handed over to the applicants
herein. The death of Smt. Mariyamma is an untoward incident.
The case is registered by Mysuru Railway Police in UDR
No.75/2011 on 19.08.2011 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. on the
intimation given by the Station Master, Sagarakatte. The
inquest reveals that it is a clear case of an untoward incident.
The applicants are the sons of the deceased, who have
identified the body of the deceased Smt. Mariyamma. Hence,
NC: 2023:KHC:20013
MFA No. 5772 of 2016
the applicants made the claim that on account of accident, they
have lost the earning member of the family.
4. In reply, the respondent filed the statement of
objection contending that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger as the ticket stated in Para Nno.7 is a planted ticket.
There is no eye witness to the alleged incident and the police
have drawn the inquest on assumption and no report, message
or complaint was received regarding the said alleged incident
from the above said train. It is contended that, as per
Statutory DRM's Report, it is concluded that as per the enquiry
made by the Inspector of RPF, the body was found in the
middle of the track, right hand crushed and right knee cut and
left knee broken indicating that the body was within the track.
Therefore, RPF has concluded it as a case of suicide from the
above circumstances of the case and the death has caused due
to self-inflicted injuries. Hence, the respondent is not liable to
pay the compensation.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal
also framed the following issues:
1. Whether there was any untoward incident?
NC: 2023:KHC:20013
MFA No. 5772 of 2016
2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide
passenger?
3. Whether the applicants are dependants of the
deceased?
4. Whether the applicants are entitled for any
relief and interest as prayed for in the
application?
6. The applicants, in order to substantiate their claim,
examined the first applicant as A.W.1 and got marked the
documents as Exs.A1 to A11. The applicants also examined the
second applicant as A.W.2 and got marked the documents as
Exs.A12 to A15. The respondent did not lead any oral evidence,
however marked DRM's Investigation Report as Ex.R1.
7. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, particularly taking
note of the documents of Exs.A1 to A15 and also the report
which is marked as Ex.R1, in Para No.15, extracted Sections
123 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and in Para No.16,
observed that though a benefit of doubt can be given in respect
of bonafide status of deceased as a passenger in view of the
retrieval of ticket from the body of the deceased during inquest
as stated in inquest report marked as Ex.A4, it cannot be
NC: 2023:KHC:20013
MFA No. 5772 of 2016
inferred that deceased died due to the injuries sustained on
account of fall from train. As such, the death of the deceased
comes under proviso of Section 124-A of the Railways Act,
1989 i.e., (a) suicide or attempted to commit suicide (b) self-
inflicted injury and (c) her own criminal act for which applicants
are not entitled for compensation from railways. The Tribunal
also observed that, inspite of the deceased having a valid
ticket, her death is not covered under Section 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989 since, she died due to her own criminal act,
negligence, suicide and caused self-inflicted injury and relied
upon Ex.R1-DRM's Investigation Report and disputed the claim
of the applicants and rejected the claim petition.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
vehemently contend that, it is not in dispute that the deceased
traveled from Holenarasipura to Mysuru and ticket was also
retrieved from the body of the deceased. Hence, the very
contention that she is not a bonafide passenger cannot be
accepted and it is a clear case of untoward incident and she has
fallen from the moving train and death is on account of rush in
the train. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error and
though the Tribunal has taken note of the document at Ex.A4,
NC: 2023:KHC:20013
MFA No. 5772 of 2016
erroneously comes to the conclusion that it attracts proviso of
Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 and the very approach of
the Tribunal is erroneous. The counsel also brought to notice of
this Court the charge-sheet marked which clearly discloses that
death is on account of fall from moving train and the question
of suicide does not arise, when the deceased traveled in the
train from Holenarasipura to Mysuru and the incident has also
taken place near Mysuru i.e., at Sagarakatte, in between
Mysuru and K.R. Nagar and the same has not been appreciated
by the Tribunal. Hence, it requires interference.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has taken note of
the fact that it is a fall from the train but, the body is found
near Sagarakatte railway station and it is a clear case of suicide
and injuries are also inflicted injuries and the Tribunal also
taken note of the said fact into consideration. Hence, it does
not require any interference.
10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, it is not in dispute that ticket was retrieved from
the body of the deceased. It is also important to note that case
NC: 2023:KHC:20013
MFA No. 5772 of 2016
has been registered in UDR No.75/2011 in terms of Ex.A1
dated 19.08.2011 on the date of the death itself and the
railway police have investigated the matter and filed the
charge-sheet. In the charge-sheet also, it is specifically
mentioned that, it is an untoward incident and death is also on
account of fall from moving train. When such being the case,
the very conclusion reached by the Tribunal that it is a case of
suicide and self-inflicted injury cannot be accepted and the said
finding is not based on any material on record.
11. No doubt, the respondent rely upon the document
of Ex.R1-DRM's Investigation Report issued by the
Investigating Agency and though the same is marked, the
author of the said document has not been examined before the
Tribunal and the Tribunal cannot give much credibility to the
document which is marked as Ex.R1 i.e., DRM's Investigation
Report and on what basis, the said conclusion was arrived at is
also not discussed in the order of the Tribunal and unless the
same is proved by examining the author, mere marking of the
document is not a ground to reject the claim of the applicants.
NC: 2023:KHC:20013
MFA No. 5772 of 2016
12. It is important to note that, when the document is
very clear that the deceased traveled from Holenarasipura to
Mysuru on the particular day and she has fallen from the train,
the very conclusion reached by the Tribunal invoking Section
124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 that it is a self-inflicted injury
i.e., an attempt to commit suicide is not supported by any
material, except the document of Ex.R1 which is not proved.
Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the
claim petition filed by the applicants and no definite finding is
given by the Tribunal as to whether it was an untoward
incident, whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and
whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased and no
dispute with regard to the fact that the applicants are the
dependents of the deceased. When such being the case and
when the deceased was a bonafide passenger, who traveled
from Holenarasipura to Mysuru on a particular day and an
untoward incident has taken place and she has fallen from the
moving train, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim
petition and failed to consider even the document of charge-
sheet, wherein the railway police investigated the matter and
filed the charge-sheet stating that it is an untoward incident
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:20013
MFA No. 5772 of 2016
and the deceased has fallen from the moving train. Hence, the
order passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside.
13. Now, with regard to the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the High Court of Delhi in the judgment in the
case of RANI DEVI vs UNION OF INDIA reported in 2018
ACJ 2681 awarded an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- considering
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RATHI MENON
reported in 2001 ACJ 721 (SC). Further, in the case of
SMT.GANGAMMA AND OTHERS vs UNION OF INDIA
reported in 2019 (3) KCCR 2636, this Court in Para No.32
relied upon the case of the RANI DEVI (referred supra) and
awarded an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a.
from the date of filing the claim petition. Hence, in the case on
hand also, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court
passes the following:
ORDER
(1) The appeal is allowed.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:20013
MFA No. 5772 of 2016
(2) The order dated 17.11.2015 passed in OA II U
161/2011 is set aside by allowing the claim
petition filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act,
1987 awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the
date of filing of the claim petition before the
Railway Tribunal.
(3) The respondent-Union of India is directed to
pay the compensation amount with interest
within six weeks from today.
(4) The first and the second appellants being the
sons of the deceased are entitled for 60% of
the award amount and the third appellant
being the daughter of the deceased is entitled
for 40% of the award amount.
(5) The Registry is directed to send the records to
the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
