Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rekha @ Surekh Pujari vs Union Of India on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31309
MFA No. 5618 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5618 OF 2019 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. REKHA @ SUREKH PUJARI
W/O MALLAPPA @ MALLIKARJUNA
DODDAPPA PUJARI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
HOUSEWIFE
2. SRI MALLAPPA @
MALLIKARJUNA DODDAPPA PUJARI
S/O.DODDAPPA PUJARI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
TRACTOR DRIVER
BOTH ARE R/O WARD NO.3,
LAKSHMI GOWDARA PET
ILAKAL VILLAGE,
HUNGUNDA TALUK
BAGALAKOTE DISTRICT
Digitally KARNATAKA STATE
signed by ...APPELLANTS
MEGHA
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJA K.G., ADVOCATE)
MOHAN
Location: AND:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI-580 020
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHANTHIBHUSHA, ASG)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:
07.02.2019 PASSED ON OA (II U) NO.158/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31309
MFA No. 5618 of 2019
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION ON CONTEST BUT IN THE
PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WITHOUT COSTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders
passed on O.A.(II U)No.158/2015 dated 07.02.2019 by Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, on the
application filed by the claimants under Section 16 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
2. Is a case of the claimants that on 19.03.2015, the
deceased as a bonafide passenger with a valid journey ticket
for his travel from Bangalore City to Bagalkot was travelling in
Golgumbaz Express. Due to heavy rush, the deceased was
forced to travel standing near the doorway of the compartment.
During the course of the journey, due to heavy rush and thrust
of passengers, he lost balance and had accidentally fell down
from the moving train between Bangalore city and
Malleshwaram Railway Station near RKM.No.3/100-200 and
sustained severe injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to
NC: 2024:KHC:31309
K.C.General Hospital, Bangalore by an auto rickshaw. On the
advise of the doctor, later he was shifted to Victoria Hospital,
Bangalore. After examining the injured, doctors at Victoria
Hospital have declared as brought dead. The claimants have
filed this application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987, claiming compensation of an amount of
₹8,00,000/-. It is the case of the respondent/Railways that he
is not a bonafide passenger and he was not possessing a valid
journey ticket to travel from Bangalore city to Bagalkot and the
claimant is not entitled for any compensation from the
respondent. In view of the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act,
whereby the Railway Administration is not liable if the
passenger dies or suffers injuries due to suicide or attempt to
suicide b)Self-inflicted injury c) his own criminal act d) Any act
committed by him in a state of intoxication and insanity e)Any
natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless
a treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the
said untowards incident. The tribunal had considered the
evidence on record, that is AW-1 to AW-14 who were examined
on behalf of the claimant. The railways have not led any oral
NC: 2024:KHC:31309
evidence, but they have filed the DRM's report. Basing on that,
the court had framed 4 issues as follows:
1. Whether there was any untoward incident as is
defined under the provisions of Section 123c of
railway Act, 1989?
2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger?
3. Whether the applicants are dependents of the
deceased?
4. Whether the applicants are entitled for any relief
and interest as prayed for in the claim
application."
3. The court had considered the FIR registered under
Section 174 of Cr.PC dated 19.03.2015 at 8:00 PM. As per the
inquest proceedings indicates that the severe abrasion wound
found on the chest and waist, right leg was amputated and
separated from the body and railway grease found on the body.
The panchas have opined that the deceased while travelling has
fallen down accidentally from the moving train and died. The
court has also considered the DRM's Report that the public
noticed the injured person and informed the matter to the clerk
in-charge, MWM railway station and injured person died by then
shifting from K.C. General Hospital to Victoria Hospital. But,
there is no witness to say that the deceased has travelled by
NC: 2024:KHC:31309
train and fell down from the train. Moreover, guard or Co-
passengers of any train, were not aware of the incident. The
statement given by the deceased person's brother-in-law is
purely an afterthought statement. During the inquest RPSI/SBC
did not recover any railway tickets from the deceased person.
Hence he is not a bonafide passenger. Considering the
arguments of both the sides and also a judgment of this Court
in MFA.No.426/2016 dated 06.07.2018, the court has come to
the conclusion that the burden of proof entirely rests on the
applicants to prove the untoward incident within the meaning of
Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, had taken place as
there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and mere finding a
dead body itself is not a ground to hold that an untoward
incident had taken place and the applicants are entitled for
compensation. Accordingly, the Railway tribunal had dismissed
the petition filed by the applicants as they have failed to prove
that that there was an untoward incident. Aggrieved thereby
the present appeal is filed by the applicants.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that solely on the ground that there was no ticket and he is not
NC: 2024:KHC:31309
a bonafide passenger and further, there are no eye witnesses
to the accident, as such the tribunal has held that the
applicants are not entitled for compensation. Learned counsel
submits that it is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. He had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
court in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi1 . Relying on
the said judgment, he submits that once an affidavit is filed by
them narrating the events, the applicants burden is discharged
and the burden shifts to the railways to prove that he is not a
bonafide passenger and the accident was not an untoward
incident. In this case the burden is on the Railways, but the
tribunal had fastened the burden on the applicants and
dismissed the petition. They submitted that the applicants are
entitled for compensation, as he died because of falling off from
the train and it is an untoward incident, as defined under the
Act.
5.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/railways
submits that the decesed was not having any ticket and they
have failed to prove that he is a bonafide passenger. No
eyewitness to the incident has been examined. Unless and until
2019 (3) SCC 572
NC: 2024:KHC:31309
that prima-facie burden is discharged by the applicant, question
of the burden shifting to the Railway's do not arise. It is
submitted that the tribunal had rightly considered the evidence
and as they failed to prove that it is an untoward incident as
defined under the Act, the tribunal had rightly dismissed the
application.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. It is a case of the
applicants that while travelling in the train the deceased fell
down on the track and later when he was taken to the hospital,
the hospital authorities have declared as brought dead. The
whole basis for the Tribunal to dismiss this application filed by
the appellant herein seeking compensation is that there is no
ticket and they failed to prove that it is an untoward incident.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Rina Devi's case referred supra
at para No.29 of the judgment had held that mere presence of
a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive proof to
hold that injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger, for
which claim for compensation could be maintained. However,
mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not
NC: 2024:KHC:31309
negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. Initial
burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing
an affidavit on the relevant facts and the burden will then shift
on the railways and the issue can be decided on the facts
shown or the attending circumstances. This has to be dealt with
from case to case on the basis of facts found. In the light of the
said judgment, the applicants had filed an affidavit before the
court that the accident had taken place while he was travelling
in the train as a bonafide passenger the untoward incident has
occurred and they have discharged their burden. Then the
burden shifted to the railways and from the record, except filing
the report, they have not filed any other document to show
that he is not a bonafide passenger nor the untoward incident
had taken place.
7. Considering all these aspects and considering the
evidence that is placed on behalf of the applicants, the police
records and the hospital and the inquest and all the witnesses,
clearly shows that the accident had taken place. It was an
untoward incident and while the applicant was travelling in the
train from Bangalore City to Bagalkot, the accident had taken
NC: 2024:KHC:31309
place. In that view of the matter, as this a case of death, the
claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-
8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is
Allowed.
i. The claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.8,00,000/-.
ii. The parents are equally entitled for the
compensation.
iii. The respondents shall pay the amount within 8
weeks.
iv. All IAs., in the appeal shall stands closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG, TS
