Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Thimmakka on 22 April, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15881
MFA No. 6287 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6287 OF 2016 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI-580020.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THIMMAKKA
WIFE OF LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 2. ANJAN MURTHY
COURT OF SON OF LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. MANJUNATH
SON OF LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT CHOWDASANDRA,
HONNASANDRA POST
KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15881
MFA No. 6287 of 2016
4. KAMALA
D/O LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
AREBOMMANAHALLI,
AGRAHARA POST
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIPAL J. SANGHVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL 1987, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.6.2016
PASSED IN OA II U 012/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
TILL THE DATE OF AWARD AND THEREAFTER @ 9% P.A TILL
THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE SAME.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
also the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In this Miscellaneous First Appeal, challenge is
made questioning allowing of claim petition by Railway
Tribunal on the ground that no railway ticket is produced
by the claimant before the Tribunal. Apart from that the
NC: 2024:KHC:15881
death summary report of the BGS hospital (A-14) it is
stated that the deceased was a victim of road traffic
accident. He had been operated elsewhere for fractured
right femur and left ankle. Thereafter he had referred to
the BGS hospital. In view of the hospital records indicating
that the deceased was a victim of road traffic accident, the
Railway Claims Tribunal could not have held that the
deceased had fallen down from moving train resulting in
his death.
3. The case of the claimants was that the
deceased had purchased a ticket at Dabaspet and was
traveling to Tumkur and they choose not to mention the
train in which he was traveling and the ticket was also not
produced. The RW1, the railway ticket agent of Dabaspet
railway station stated in his evidence that no incident of a
fall from a train took place at Dabaspet. This evidence that
no incident of a fall from a train took place at Dabaspet.
This evidence coupled with the fact that no incident
written statement reported by either the guard or the
driver of the train proved the case of the railways that no
NC: 2024:KHC:15881
untoward incident occurred at Dabaspet on 31.03.2012.
The Tribunal has failed to notice the glaring contradictions
of the evidence of AW2 who is stated to have purchased
the ticket for the deceased and this has vitiated the order
of the Tribunal. Hence, it requires interference.
4. The counsel for the appellant in his argument
re-iterated the same and vehemently contend that the
Railway Tribunal committed an error in giving finding by
answering the issues framed in coming to the conclusion
that when untoward incident was taken place and
committed an error in awarding compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum till the date of
award and thereafter 9% per annum till the date of actual
payment of the same. Hence, it requires interference.
5. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondent would submits that the Tribunal has not
committed any error in considering the material on record
and also contend that applicants have filed affidavits i.e.,
the son of the deceased one Manjunath who has been
examined as AW1 and also son-in-law has been examined
NC: 2024:KHC:15881
as AW2 and the documents A1 to A17 are marked and
those documents are also very clear with regard to an
untoward incident has taken place and deceased had
accidentally fallen near the Dabaspet Railway station and
immediately he was shifted in an ambulance-108 to
Tumkur Government Hospital for treatment. Ex.A1 is the
FIR registered under UDR No.072/2012 and 31.03.2012 by
Sub-Inspector, Rural Railway Police Station,
Yeshwantpura. The document Ex.A3 is based on the C.Misc
No.008/2012 issued by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police, Railway Police Outpost, Tumkur wherein also stated
that on 31.03.2012 at about 3.30 p.m., Gangahanumaiah
aged about 65 years fallen down from the train and got
injured and admitted him to the Government District
Hospital, Tumkur at about 4.40 p.m. He was referred to
BGS Hospital for better treatment. These are the materials
discussed in paragraph No.9 of the judgment while
answering issue Nos.1 and 2 whether he was a bonafide
passenger and whether an untoward incident was taken
place. The Tribunal rightly considered the material on
NC: 2024:KHC:15881
record and also comes to the conclusion that applicants
are the defendants and they are entitled for the relief and
it does not requires any interference.
6. This Court earlier heard the matter and queries
are made with regard to why immediate hospital records
are not produced before the Court since it is a case of
claimant that immediately after the accident, the injured
was shifted to the government hospital at Tumkur.
7. The counsel for respondent also produced two
documents i.e., summary sheet from the government
hospital at Tumkur and discharge summary sheet issued
by Premier Sanjeevini Hospital. The counsel by referring
these documents would contend that the hospital records
of government hospital is clear that the railway accident
was taken place at Dabaspet at 3.00 p.m., and
immediately the patient was shifted to the hospital at 4.30
p.m., and also patient was found on track. The premier
Sanjeevini hospital discharge summary is also produced
and history is mentioned as RTA on 31.03.2012.
NC: 2024:KHC:15881
8. The counsel for respondent would contend that
the Apex Court in catena of judgments held that if the
amount not exceeds Rs.8,00,000/- higher the amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- may be awarded and the Apex Court in the
case of UNION OF INDIA vs RINA DEVI reported in
(2019)3 SCC 572 and in the case of RATHI MENON vs
UNION OF INDIA reported in (2001) 3 SCC 714
categorically held that if the compensation with interest is
less than Rs.8,00,000/- if the same is calculated, the
claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-
which is higher the amount. Hence, the order passed by
the Tribunal is modified even though in the absence of the
appeal filed by the claimants and the legislation is a social
legislation and the interest of the victims also to be
protected.
9. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the respondent, when the
records produced by the claimants are marked as Ex.A1 to
Ex.A17 and also Railway Tribunal taken note of the FIR-
Ex.A1 and also taken note of Ex.A3 based on C.Misc
NC: 2024:KHC:15881
No.008/2012 issued by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police, Railway Outpost wherein it is stated that on
31.03.2012 at about 3.30 p.m., the said deceased
Gangahanumaiah fallen down from the train and he got
injured and immediately he was shifted to hospital and
timings is also mentioned as 4.40 p.m., and thereafter he
was referred to BGS hospital i.e., also the claim of the
claimant also. Now, the document which is produced
before the Court also substantiate that injured was taken
to the Government hospital immediately at 4.30 p.m.,
Thereafter he was shifted to Premier Sanjeevini hospital
on the next day. He was in-patient for a period of 6 days
from 01.04.2012 to 05.04.2012 and he was subjected to
surgery. Thereafter, he was shifted to BGS hospital and
mistake crept in mentioning as RTA in the previous
hospital i.e., in Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, the same is
continued in BGS Hospital also. Hence, the very contention
of the appellant's counsel that the history mentioned in
the BGS hospital as RTA has not been taken note of by the
Railway Tribunal cannot be accepted. No doubt the
NC: 2024:KHC:15881
document of immediate shifting of injured to the
Government hospital was not produced before the Railway
Tribunal and now the certified copy is produced before the
Court. The doubt which was found by dispute is also is
satisfactorily explained by the counsel appearing for the
respondent that he was immediately shifted to the
Government hospital, Tumkur. When such being the
material available on record, I do not find any force in the
contention of appellant's counsel that Railway Claims
Tribunal committed an error. The other contention is also
that railway ticket has not been produced and the same
cannot be a ground when the incident was taken place in
the station near Dabaspet and also the very immediate
document clearly discloses that body was found in the
railway track itself. When such being the case, the very
contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. This is a
case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)
of Railway Act, 1999. Hence, the Railway Tribunal has not
committed any error and also reason was given while
answering issue No.2 that it is possible that journey ticket
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15881
was lost in the process when the respondent virtually
admits the travel of the deceased by train, it is accidental
fall from the train and non-production of journey ticket is
of no consequence and also rightly comes to the
conclusion that the death of the deceased was a bonafide
passenger was died due to the accidental fall from the
train which amounts to untoward incident within the
meaning of Section 123(c) R/w Section 124(a) of Railway
Act. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the
Railway Tribunal considering the material available on
record and also taken note of the document Ex.A10-
Genealogical tree issued by the Village Accountant with
regard to the dependency is concerned and also
considered the material on record and awarded
compensation. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere
with the findings of the Railway Tribunal. Hence there is no
any merit to comes to a other conclusion.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15881
ORDER
i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.
However, modified the judgment and award
passed by the Railway Tribunal granting higher
the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, if it is less
than, if it is calculated with an amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- with interest as awarded by the
Tribunal.
ii) The appellant is directed to satisfy the
compensation amount within 8 weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHS
