Karnataka High Court

Sri. Bapugouda Basanagowda ... vs Union Of India on 23 February, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                             -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC:7606
                                                     MFA No. 2657 of 2016




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                           BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2657 OF 2016 (RCT)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI. BAPUGOUDA BASANAGOWDA
                         KENCHANAGOUDAR
                         S/O LATE BASANNAGOWDA KENCHANAGOUDAR
                         AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
                         OCCUPATION RTD: TEACHER

                   2.    SMT. GIRIJA BASANAGOWDA
                         KENCHANAGOUDAR
                         W/O BAANAGOWDA KENCHANAGOUDAR
                         AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                         HOUSE WIFE
                         BOTH ARE R/O HULLUR VILLAGE
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T            RONA TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT
Location: HIGH           KARNATAKA STATE
COURT OF                                                   ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
                   (BY SRI K G SHANTHARAJA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   UNION OF INDIA
                   REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
                   SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
                   HUBLI-580020
                                                          ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGC)
                                   -2-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:7606
                                           MFA No. 2657 of 2016




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 04.11.2015 PASSED IN OA II U 80/2013 ON THE
FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
BENCH, BANGALORE AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

04.11.2015 passed in OA II U 80/2013 by the Railway

Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'Tribunal').

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties.

3. The appellants, before the Tribunal, claimed the

compensation of Rs.8/- lakh under Section 16 of the RCT

Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A plaintiff Railways Act,

1989 from the respondent/railways. It is the case of the

appellants that their son Umesha alleged to have died on

spot in an untoward incident that occurred on 20.02.2013.

It is their claim that the deceased Umesha, on

20.02.2013, while traveling from Hubli to Holehaluru by

NC: 2024:KHC:7606

the Hubli-Sholapur express train with holding the journey

ticket, due to the rush of passenger, the deceased might

have been sit or stand nearby the wash basin of the train

and due to the jerk and jolt of the train, the deceased

might have been lost the balance and unexpectedly, he

might have been fallen down in between Balaganur and

Mallapura railway station at Railway K.M.No.24/600-700

by train and sustained severe injuries and died at the spot.

The untoward incident was noticed by applicant No.1

through mobile phone. Afterwards, applicant No.1 came

to the Gadag Government hospital and identified the

deceased and after completion of PME, the body of the

deceased was taken to their village and completed their

customs. The cause of the accident is due to the negligent

driving of the driver of the said passenger train. The

respondent appeared before the Tribunal and filed

objection contending that he is not a bonafide passenger

and ticket is not found and only with an intention to gain

wrongfully, the claim is made. Hence, the claimants are

not entitled for any compensation.

NC: 2024:KHC:7606

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the

Tribunal framed the following Issues:

1. Whether there was any untoward incident as is defined in terms of provision of Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989?

2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger?

3. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased?

4. Whether the applicants are entitled for any relief and interest as prayed for in the application?

5. The Tribunal allowed the parties to lead their

evidence and accordingly, applicant No.1 who is the father

of the deceased son examined as AW1 and got marked the

documents at Ex.A1 to A11. On the other hand,

respondent submitted DRMs investigation report and the

same got marked as Ex.R1 and not led any oral evidence.

The Tribunal having considered the material available on

record dismissed the claim of the appellants in coming to

the conclusion that no ticket was found on the body of the

deceased and applicants have led no piece of evidence

NC: 2024:KHC:7606

which establishes that deceased was a bonafide passenger

and he died due to the injuries sustained on account of fall

from the train and AW1 also unable to furnish any details

with regard to the manner in which incident took place and

only reason given that clothes of the deceased were torn

and in that process, the ticket might have lost and hence,

not accepted the case of the claimants and rejected the

claim petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the

appellants would vehemently contend that non-production

of ticket itself is not a ground to reject the claim petition.

The Tribunal failed to consider the claim of the appellants

and failed to consider the documentary evidence in a

proper perspective and acted arbitrarily without looking

into the material available on record particularly, inquest

report and also the final report which has been given by

the railway department itself to show that the alleged

incident is an untoward incident and accidental incident

and report was also submitted by the railway department

NC: 2024:KHC:7606

itself after the investigation but the Tribunal has not

considered the same and only relying upon the document

at Ex.R1, rejected the claim petition.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent/railway would vehemently contend that

when no document is placed before the Tribunal to show

that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and he

traveled in the said train and the Tribunal relied upon

Ex.R1 wherein it is mentioned that from the enquiry, it is

concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that on

20.02.2013, the deceased Umesh had traveled by rain and

no journey ticket was found on his body by the GRP/Gadag

hence, he was not a bonafide passenger. Hence, the

Tribunal rightly rejected the claim petition in coming to the

conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide

passenger and he has not traveled in the said train.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the respective parties and also on perusal of the material

available on record, it discloses that applicant No.1 who is

NC: 2024:KHC:7606

none other than the father of the deceased was examined

as AW1 and he reiterated in his evidence that his son was

traveling on 20.02.2013 from Hubli to Holehaluru and he

relies upon the documents at Ex.A1 to A11 to substantiate

his contention. On perusal of Ex.A1 it discloses that the

report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway

Police Station regarding incident is concerned under

Section 174 of Cr.P.C wherein reported the death and also

it is stated in the report that they have received the

information by M.S. Prabhuswamy Math regarding death of

the deceased. Ex.A2 is the information of loco-pilot of

57643 wherein it is stated that a male person aged about

30 years dead body laying side of track at K.M.24/700-800

between BLR-MLP station and this report was also given

on the same day i.e., on 20.02.2013. The other document

is Ex.A3 - Inquest which clearly discloses that the loco-

pilot informed the death of a person which was found at

K.M.24/700-800 between BLR-MLP station. AW1 also

relied upon the final report of the Railways which is

marked as Ex.A11 which discloses that the Railway Police

NC: 2024:KHC:7606

have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet

stating that the deceased who was traveling in the train,

accidentally fell down from the said train and the same is

an untoward incident. No doubt, AW1 is not an eye-

witness and at the same time, the Railway department has

not examined any witness but only relies upon Ex.R1. No

doubt, in terms of Ex.R1, the Tribunal comes to the

conclusion the deceased was not a bonafide passenger

since there is no journey ticket and ticket was not

recovered from his body.

9. Having considered the discussions made by the

Tribunal wherein the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that

no ticket is produced and hence, the case of the claimants

cannot be believed. On perusal of the material available

on record, this Court found that the Tribunal fails to

discuss with regard to the evidence of AW1 who is the

father of the deceased and he relied upon the

documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A11. Particularly,

Ex.A1 is the FIR in which, death is reported and Ex.A2 is

NC: 2024:KHC:7606

the message given on the same day and Ex.A3 is the

inquest report wherein also it is specifically mentioned that

the body was found based on the information given by the

loco-pilot. Apart from that, the Tribunal has not discussed

about Ex.A11 in the judgment wherein it is specifically

mentioned that while traveling by the train, the deceased

accidentally fell down by the train and sustained severe

injuries and died at spot, hence, the death of the deceased

treated as untoward incident and final report is also given

after the investigation stating that it is an untoward

incident and accidental incident was taken place when the

deceased was traveling in the train. Hence, the Tribunal

fails to take note of the documents particularly, Ex.A1, A2,

A11 so also A3 wherein specifically mentioned with regard

to the untoward incident but the Tribunal only considered

Ex.R1 and comes to the conclusion that the deceased was

not a bonafide passenger and discussion was not made

with regard to the documents produced by the appellants.

When such being the case, this Court is of the opinion that

the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:7606

documents at Ex.A1 to A11 particularly, Ex.A1, A2, A3 and

A11 since all these documents reveal that the deceased

was traveled in the said train on the particular date and

body was found in the particular place i.e., at K.M24/700-

800 between BLR-MLP station. Instead of considering

those materials available on record, the Tribunal

considered only Ex.R1 and comes to the conclusion that

the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Hence, the

said conclusion is erroneous one and thus, the claim

petition is not considered on merits as well as not

considered the materials available on record by the

Tribunal. Hence, it requires interference.

10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The impugned judgment dated 04.11.2015

passed in OA II U 80/2013 is set aside.

Consequently, the claim petition is allowed

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:7606

granting the higher rate of compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- as per the decisions of 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.