Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramachandra vs Union Of India on 4 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14289
MFA No. 895 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 895 OF 2019 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMACHANDRA
S/O SHEKAPPA PUTTAPPA PUTTANNANAVAR,
AGE 30 YEARS,
R/O BIDARAKOPPA,
HANAGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.G.CONTRACTOR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.JAGADEESHGOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBLI.
Digitally signed
by ...RESPONDENT
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA (BY SRI. ADITYA SINGH, CGC)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS MFA FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED
20.12.2017, PASSED IN CLAIM APPLICATION NO.OA II U
003/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION AS
PER FINDINGS AND SPEAKING ORDER IN THE FOREGOING
PARAS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14289
MFA No. 895 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging an
order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru bench in O.A.No.II U 003/2014, by
which, his claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, was rejected.
2. The claimant filed a claim petition claiming of
Rs.10,00,000/- damages for the injuries suffered while
travelling in a train on 08.04.2012 between Harihara and
Ranebennur. He claimed that, he had travelled by train on
08.04.2012 to Bhati village of Davanagere to distribute
wedding invitation cards of his marriage. After distributing
the cards, he purchased a ticket to return back to his
village from Harihara to Ranebennur. When he was so
travelling, he accidentally fell down between Ranebennur
and Kumarpattanam and lost consciousness. Some
passers by shifted him to Harihara Government Hospital
and thereafter he was shifted to Chigateri District Hospital
and from there to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, where he
NC: 2024:KHC:14289
was treated from 08.04.2012 to 20.04.2012. Since he did
not regain consciousness, he was shifted to SSIMS & RC at
Davanagere, where he was treated. Based on the
information furnished by Government Hospital, Harihara
MLC was recorded in C.Misc.No.28/2012 by the railway
police. He therefore claimed that he suffered injuries in an
"untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c) of
the Railway Act, 1989 and hence claimed that he was
entitled to be compensated.
3. The claim petition was opposed by the
respondent, who claimed that, there was no cause of
action for making claim under Section 16 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, as the incident alleged by the
claimant was not an "untoward incident" as defined under
Section 123(c) of the Railway Act, 1989. The respondent
contended that, the claimant was bound to prove that the
injuries suffered was not a self inflicted injury or not a
criminal cut by the claimant when he was intoxicated. The
respondent denied that the claimant had travelled from
NC: 2024:KHC:14289
Harihara to Ranebennur on 08.04.2012 and that he
suffered injuries while travelling in the train. It contended
that there was no passenger train from Harihara to
Ranebennur. It claimed that there was no 200 meters high
bridge between Harihara to Ranebennur, where the
claimant allegedly fell. Based on these contentions, the
claim petition was set down for trial.
4. The claimant was examined as AW.1 and he
marked Exs.A.1 to 15, of which, Ex.A.6 was the ticket
from Haveri to Harihara and Harihara to Ranebennur dated
08.04.2012. The respondent did not enter the witness box,
but marked a copy of the statutory investigation done by
the Divisional Railway Manager as Ex.R.1. Based on the
oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the
documents produced by the claimant were contradictory
as he could not recollect the exact date and time when he
fell from the train. It held that there was no evidence to
show who shifted the claimant to the hospital at Harihara.
It held that though the tickets were recovered and
NC: 2024:KHC:14289
produced by the applicant as Ex.A.6, the medical
documents produced by him indicated the date of incident
as 09.04.2012 and the time of incident was mentioned as
9.15 am, 1.10 pm, 8.10 pm. It held that this contradictory
version generated doubt about the version of claimant. It
held that mere recovery of a ticket did not help the
claimant in establishing that the injuries suffered by him
was due to a fall from the train while travelling on
08.04.2012. Consequently, it rejected the claim petition.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the claimant
has filed this statutory appeal. The learned counsel for the
claimant contended that the Tribunal has rejected the
petition on thoroughly specious grounds. He contends that
Ex.A.7 is the admission intimation by Bapuji Hospital,
Davanagere which recorded that the claimant had fallen
down from a moving train. He contended that this
document established beyond doubt that the claimant
suffered injuries in an "untoward incident". He contended
that DRM's report marked as Ex.R.1 supported the case of
NC: 2024:KHC:14289
the claimant. Therefore, he contended that the claimant be
compensated suitably. The learned Central Government
Counsel contended that there were several contradictions
in the case of the claimant which generated suspicion
about the claim made. He referred to several such
contradictions and contended that the claimant is not
entitled to claim compensation.
6. The claimant claimed that he was travelling to
Davanagere from Harihara to distribute cards for his
wedding scheduled on 25.04.2012 and after distributing
the cards to his relatives he purchased a ticket to travel
from Harihara back to Ranebennur. The report of the
Divisional Railway Manager shows that the deceased did
not come under the wheels of the train, but fell off the
train and lost consciousness. The fact that he was
admitted to the hospital on the same day at Harihara
Hospital from where he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital,
Davanagere establishes the fact that he suffered injuries
while travelling in the train. The production of the journey
NC: 2024:KHC:14289
tickets established beyond doubt that the claimant had
travelled by the train on 08.04.2012. Since, the
respondent did not examine any of its officials to doubt the
contention of the claimant, the tribunal committed an
error in disputing the claim of the claimant on surmises
and conjectures. There was no reason why the claim
petition could not be entertained. The finding of the
tribunal is utterly perverse and based on assumptions and
warrants interference. Hence, this appeal is allowed. The
impugned order is set aside. The claimant is entitled to
compensation of Rs.40,000/-. The respondent shall pay
interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition
till the date of payment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
