Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kavitha vs Union Of India on 8 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5509
MFA No. 8547 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8547 OF 2018 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KAVITHA
W/O N KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
TEACHER
2. SRI N KUMAR
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCCUPATION: SOCIAL SERVICE,
3. KUM. K ROSHINI
D/O N. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
OCCUPATION: SOCIAL SERVICE,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH ALL ARE R/O
COURT OF AMBEDKAR COLONY,
KARNATAKA
HOSKOTE TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA STATE- 562 114
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJA K G.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5509
MFA No. 8547 of 2018
SOUTH WERSTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI- 580020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.01.2018 PASSED ON OA II U NO.86/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION AS PER FINDINGS AND
SPEAKING ORDER.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
also the counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed
challenging rejection of claim petitions filed by the
appellants in coming to the conclusion that the claimants
have not proved the untoward incident and also the
deceased was a bonafide passenger. The counsel would
vehemently contend that the tribunal committed an error
in not considering both oral and documentary evidence
NC: 2024:KHC:5509
placed before the Tribunal in a proper perspective. It is
also contended by the counsel that the Tribunal committed
an error in considering the untoward incident even inspite
of document of train ticket is seized on the very next day
from the co-passenger, the same is also marked as A5.
Apart from that the document A2 is the message given by
the railway police. The counsel also submit that final
charge sheet is also filed by the railway police but the
same could not be marked before the Tribunal and all
these material clearly discloses that an untoward incident
was taken place when the deceased was traveling in the
train. All these both oral and documentary evidence has
not been considered properly. Hence, it requires
interference.
3. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondents would vehemently contend that the Tribunal
while considering the issue Nos.1 and 2 rightly discussed
in detail that even co-passengers have not been
examined. The very incident is doubtful and message is
NC: 2024:KHC:5509
also received on the next day and except examining the
father of the deceased, no other material is placed before
the Court to comes to a conclusion that an untoward
incident was taken place and the deceased is a bonafide
passenger. Hence, no grounds are made out.
4. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for respondents and claimants have
examined one witness as AW1. It is a case of claimant that
when the deceased was traveling with his friends from
Badami-Bengaluru in a Golgumbaz express train, an
untoward incident was taken place, the same came to
know through their friends. Hence, AW1 immediately
rushed to the spot. It is also evidence that on coming to
know about the incident, the friends are also alighted at
Hubballi railway station, but they did not came to inform
or report the same to any of the railway officials or police.
The Tribunal while considering the evidence of AW1 and
also the documentary evidence fails to take note of the
documents of Ex.A1-FIR which was registered on the very
NC: 2024:KHC:5509
next day in the early morning at 9.30 a.m., dated
13.03.2015. Apart from that other document is message
received by the railway with regard to the said incident on
the very next day and also case dairy is marked as A3
wherein also an averment is made with regard to an
untoward incident which was taken place when the
deceased was traveling in the said train. The other
documents which have been relied upon by the claimants
is that A4-P.M report which clearly discloses the cause of
death due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries
sustained. Apart from that A5 is the document of train
ticket pertains to the deceased which was seized from one
other co-passenger - Giri gujamagadi and the railway
ticket also clearly discloses that four persons have traveled
in the said train. The case of the claimants also that
deceased along with his friends traveled in the said train.
The statement of one N.Kumara S/o Narasimmaiah is also
recorded. Apart from that other documents to show the
relationship between the deceased and also claimants
document Ex.A7 is filed and marked which was election
NC: 2024:KHC:5509
I.D card as Ex.A8 and Ex.A9. The Ex.A10 and Ex.A11 are
the adhaar cards established that they are the defendants
and also produced the document of Ex.A12 - bank account
passbook, Ex.A14 and Ex.A15 are also election I.D card.
5. No doubt the claimants have not yet marked
the document of final report filed by the police and the
same is also placed before the railway Tribunal, but
inadvertently, the same is marked. Having taken note of
the final report also, it clearly discloses that there was an
untoward incident and final report has also filed. All these
documentary evidence has not been considered by the
railway Tribunal. Apart from that only comes to a
conclusion that in paragraph No.14 that none of the
friends who have traveled with the deceased were
examined. An observation made by the railway tribunal
that friends are stated to be eye witnesses to aforesaid
occurrence and their statements would have been material
but they have not been examined and mainly the Tribunal
concentrated with regard to the non-examination of the
NC: 2024:KHC:5509
friends who have traveled along with deceased, but fails to
take note of the documents which have been produced
before the railway Tribunal particularly the ticket as well
as the intimation given to the railway police and also the
final report and the inquest wherein specific details are
given with regard to an incident which was taken place in
the railway train when he was traveling in the said train.
The documentary evidence has not been considered and
the railway Tribunal given more credence only to the oral
evidence and particularly non-examination of the friends
who have been traveled along with the deceased. Hence,
the very approach of the Tribunal is erraneous and the
Tribunal committed an error in not considering the case of
claimants particularly not considering the documentary
evidence which has been discussed above. Hence, the
order requires interference by setting aside the same and
the claim petition requires to be allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:5509
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order passed is set-aside and claim
petition is allowed.
The compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees
Four Lakhs only) is awarded with 6% interest from the
date of accident.
The claimants are parents and unmarried sisters and
hence, all are equally entitled for compensation amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHS
