Karnataka High Court
Mr. Alavelappa @ Aluvaleppa vs The Union Of India on 1 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4481
MFA No. 4120 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4120 OF 2015 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ALAVELAPPA @ ALUVELAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA, AGE 49 YEARS
2. MRS. LINGAMMA
W/O ALAVELAPPA @ ALUVALEPPA
AGE 47 YEARS
3. MRS. SUMANGALA
D/O ALAVELAPPA @ ALUVELAPPA
AGE 19 YEARS,
4. MASTER SHIVU @ SHIVAPPA
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T AGE 16 YEARS,
Location: HIGH SINCE CLAIMANT NO.4 IS MINOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HE IS REP. BY HIS FATHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN
MR. ALAVALEPPA @ ALUVALEPPA
THE APPELLANT NO.1 HEREIN
ALL ARE R/O NO.59. CHIKKHONNAKUNI,
DEVADURGA TALUK, RAICHUR DIST.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI TANVEER PASHA A S, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4481
MFA No. 4120 of 2015
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPT. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI-580020
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SATISH KUMAR N, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.11.2014 PASSED ON OA II U 171/2011 ON THE FILE
OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH,
AT BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the counsel for the respondent is absent.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the Tribunal that on 08.03.2011, the deceased
Siddappa @ Siddaiah was traveling from Kyathasandra to
Nayandanahalli by morning pushpull train with a journey
ticket and in journey, he accidentally fallen down from the
NC: 2024:KHC:4481
said train near Goripalya bridge and sustained injuries and
succumbed to the injuries at Victoria hospital. Hence, filed
the claim petition before the Tribunal. The respondent has
filed the statement of objections denying the very clam
made by the claimants contending that there are no eye-
witnesses to the incident and only received information
from the hospital and no message or memo from the
Railways and based on the hospital information, the police
have created the story and planted the tickets to help the
claimants to get the compensation.
3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead
their evidence. In order to prove the case of the
claimants, first claimant examined as AW1 and got marked
the documents at Ex.A1 to A14 and also got examined Sri
G R Shankarappa, Headmaster of the school where the
deceased was studying and got marked the documents at
Ex.A15 to A19. On the other hand, respondent filed DRMs
report which is marked as Ex.R1, requisitions to issue
NC: 2024:KHC:4481
Transfer Certificate of B Siddaiah are marked as Ex.R2 and
R3 and report of the police to Sr. DSC is marked as Ex.R4.
The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record and also considering the
evidence of witnesses comes to the conclusion that the
deceased was not a bonafide passenger and no one had
witnessed that he was traveled in the train and there is no
eye-witness to speak that the deceased was in the railway
station; he purchased the ticket and boarded the train and
fell down from the train. Having made such an
observation, answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative in
coming to the conclusion that the claimants have not
proved that the alleged incident is an untoward accident
and deceased was a bonafide passenger and not answered
Issue Nos.3 and 4 and rejected the claim petition.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants would
vehemently contend that the Tribunal committed an error
in pursuing the documents since, the railway police have
investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet stating
NC: 2024:KHC:4481
that an untoward incident is taken place in terms of
Ex.A13. Apart from that the documents which have been
placed before the Tribunal are election ID cards of the
father and mother as Ex.A1 and A2, Ex.A3 is the memo
received from the Victoria hospital reporting death of the
deceased as he met with an railway accident and also
produced the railway ticket as Ex.A7. The counsel also
brought to notice of this Court to the inquest report which
is marked as Ex.A5 wherein also in column No.7 it is
specifically mentioned that railway ticket was secured from
the dead body and PM report is clear that death is due to
shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries
sustained. Ration card is also produced at Ex.A8 which
discloses that the deceased is the son of the claimants.
Genealogical tree is marked as Ex.A9. Statement of the
parents of the deceased is marked as Ex.A10 and A11 and
statement of uncle of the deceased is marked as Ex.A12.
The counsel also brought to notice of this Court to Ex.A13
wherein the police specifically stated that an untoward
incident was taken place when the deceased traveled in
NC: 2024:KHC:4481
the said train and also relied upon the document at Ex.A14
- Transfer Certificate of the deceased and the same is
marked by examining the Headmaster as witness. All
these documents are not considered by the Tribunal
hence, the very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and also on perusal of the material available on
record and evidences, it disclose that it is the specific
claim of the claimants that they are the parents, minor
brother and sister of the deceased and they deposed that
when the deceased was traveling from Kyathasandra to
Nayandanahalli, he fell down from the train accidentally.
It is important to note that the railway ticket which is
marked as Ex.A7 is recovered from the dead body of the
deceased Siddaiah and the same is found in the inquest
report in column No.7. Apart from that the reason given
by the Tribunal is that no one seen the deceased while
boarding and traveling in the train. The Tribunal failed to
consider the very document of railway ticket which is
NC: 2024:KHC:4481
marked as Ex.A7 and the same is recovered at the time of
inquest. The Tribunal cannot expect the eye-witness for
having purchased the ticket and traveled in the train when
very document of Ex.A7 is not disputed. The only
contention of the respondent is that the ticket is implanted
and in order to substantiate the same, no witnesses have
been examined before the Tribunal to prove the same.
Apart from that the very railway department having
received the memo from the Victoria hospital, registered
the case and investigated the matter and filed the final
report. Having perused the document at Ex.A13, it is clear
that the death is on account of untoward incident which
occurred while traveling in the said train. All these
materials have not been rebutted by the respondent and in
the absence of any rebutable evidence also, the Tribunal
comes to the conclusion that there are no eye-witnesses
and the very reasoning given by the Tribunal is erroneous.
6. The documents which are placed before the
Tribunal clearly show that an untoward incident was
NC: 2024:KHC:4481
occurred while traveling in the train and it is also clearly
show that the claimants are the dependants of the
deceased. In order to prove the fact that they are the
parents also documents are produced. No doubt, the
Tribunal relied upon the document of Ex.R3 wherein also it
is specifically mentioned that the name of the father of
deceased Siddaiah is Alavallappa and so also, Ex.R3 also
very clear with regard to the name of the father of the
deceased. These documents will go against the
respondent and in support of their document except
marking of those documents, not produced any evidence
to prove those documents and even though in the absence
of any evidence by the respondent, the Tribunal
committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the
deceased is not a bonafide passenger and there is no
discussion on Issue Nos.3 and 4 that whether the
claimants are the dependants of the deceased or not.
Hence, the very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous in
spite of having sufficient material placed before the
Tribunal to show that the deceased was traveled in the
NC: 2024:KHC:4481
said train and accidentally, he fell down and police have
investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and the
railway ticket is purchased and the same is recovered from
the dead body at the time of inquest and all these material
are not considered by the Tribunal in a proper perspective.
Hence, the order of the Tribunal requires interference.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
07.11.2014 passed in O.A.II U 171/2011 by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore is set aside. Consequently, the
claimants are entitled for the compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the
date of accident.
The claimants are equally (25% each) entitled for the
compensation amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
