Karnataka High Court
Lakshmi vs The Union Of India on 26 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7904
MFA No. 6212 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6212 OF 2019 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMI
W/O LATE THIPPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
LABOUR,
2. BHAGYAVANTI
D/O LATE THIPPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
STUDENT
3. CHANDRAKALA
D/O LATE THIPPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
STUDENT
4. AMBARISH
S/O LATE THIPPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 09 YEARS,
Digitally STUDENT
signed by BS
RAVIKUMAR
Location:
5. MINAKSHI
HIGH D/O LATE THIPPANNA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
STUDENT
6. SHARANAMMA
W/O LATE DEVINDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC: NIL
SINCE APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE MINORS,
REPRESNTING THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, WHO
IS APEELLANT NO.1 HEREIN
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
HOUSE NO.1-1-4-12,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7904
MFA No. 6212 of 2019
NEAR RING ROAD,
VENKATESH NAGAR,
SEDAM, GULBARGA DISTRICT-585222.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
SECUNDERABAD-500 003
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KUMAR M.N., CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SENIOR PANEL
COUNSEL)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.03.2019 PASSED IN OA II U 024 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the dependants of a deceased
whose claim for compensation in Case No.OA-II-U-024/2017
was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench
(for short, 'the Tribunal').
NC: 2024:KHC:7904
2. The appellants/applicants are the legal heirs of the
deceased Sri Thippanna, who was found to be dead on the
railway track by the Inspector of Railway Police on 24.08.2015.
The appellants, therefore, filed a claim petition claiming
compensation contending that the deceased was a painter by
profession and that he had boarded the train No.57156 -
Hyderabad-Gulbarga passenger on 24.08.2015 to go to
Gulbarga from Sedam. They claimed that the deceased
accidentally fell down from the train between Sedam and
Malkhed Railway Station/s and suffered serious injuries and
was killed at the spot. A claim petition was therefore filed
claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondent.
3. The claim petition was opposed by the respondent
who claimed that the claim of the appellants did not fall within
the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) or 124A of the Railways Act,
1989 (for short, 'the Act of 1989'). They contended that there
were no eye witnesses to the incident and that none had seen
the circumstances under which the incident had happened. It
was also claimed that no information was given by the guard or
the driver or any railway official about the incident. They relied
upon the statement of some witnesses in the inquest report
NC: 2024:KHC:7904
and claimed that the deceased while travelling by train
accidentally lost the balance and fell off the train. Therefore,
they contended that it was not a case of accidental fall from the
train and hence, the petition for compensation was not
maintainable. Therefore, they prayed that the petition be
dismissed.
4. Based on these contentions, the claim petition was
set down for trial. The applicant No.1 was examined as AW.1
and she marked documents as Exs.A1 to A23. She also
examined her brother as AW.2, who deposed that on
24.08.2015, he and the deceased intended to travel from
Sedam to Gulbarga on work and that he accompanied the
deceased to the Railway Station and that the deceased
purchased a ticket at Sedam Railway Station and boarded the
train. AW.2 claimed that after the train left, he returned back
to the house of the applicant No.1 at Sedam and came to know
the next morning that the husband of the applicant No.1 died in
the accident.
5. The respondent did not lead any evidence but only
placed on record an investigation report which was marked as
Ex.R1.
NC: 2024:KHC:7904
6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal held that the deceased did not possess a valid journey
ticket and therefore, it was difficult to accept that he died due
to a fall from the train while he was travelling as a bona fide
passenger. It also held that the evidence of AW.2 was
stereotypical as he parroted the version of AW.1. It held that
AW.2 even if he was present at the time of drawing inquest,
the Police would have referred his name while drawing opinion
regarding the death of Sri Thippanna. It also held that there
was no reference in the inquest report regarding AW.2 seeing
off the deceased at the Sedam railway station. Further, it held
that mere finding of a dead body or a person in dead condition
on or by the side of the railway track does not ipso facto prove
that the person fell down from the train and suffered injuries. It
therefore held that the applicants were unable to prove that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he had fallen
down from the train accidentally and that his death was on
account of an untoward incident within the meaning of Section
123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989. Therefore, it dismissed the claim
petition in terms of the impugned judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC:7904
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
filed.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that
the fact of death of deceased on the railway track is not much
in dispute and the same is established by the inquest as well as
the information provided by the Railway Police. He contends
that AW.2 was the person, who accompanied the deceased to
Sedam Railway Station, from where the deceased purchased a
journey ticket and boarded the train to go to Gulbarga and that
AW.2 had purchased a platform ticket. In order to establish
falsity of the evidence of AW.2, the respondent was bound to
establish that the deceased was not found on the railway track
and that no rail ran over him or that he did not fall down
accidentally from the moving train between Sedam and
Malkhed Railway Station/s. He contended that even if there was
no valid train ticket that was seized from the spot, that did not
mean that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the
applicants/appellants could still establish it by other evidence
and circumstances. He contended that the evidence by way of
affidavit filed before the Tribunal was sufficient to discharge the
NC: 2024:KHC:7904
onus on the appellants / applicants and it was for the railway
administration to establish the falsity of their claim.
9. Per contra, the learned Central Government Senior
panel counsel submits that there was no report by any guard or
loco pilot about the incident of death or accidental fall from the
moving train on 24.08.2015. He, therefore, submits that the
claim of the appellants that the deceased fell down from a
moving train and died is not acceptable as there is no clear
evidence about the same. He contended that if a body is found
on the railway track, that does not result in a presumption that
he/she died due to a fall from the moving train or accidentally
slipped from the moving train and therefore, the claim for
compensation is not maintainable.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants/applicants as well as the
learned Central Government Senior Panel counsel for the
Railway Administration.
11. The dead body of a man lying on a railway track
was reported by the Inspector attached to the Railway Police on
25.08.2015 at 9 a.m. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the
railway administration to immediately take steps to ascertain
NC: 2024:KHC:7904
the cause of death. If the deceased exposed himself to an
accident and allowed the train to run over him, the railway
administration must have collected information from all the
locomotive drivers to verify whether it was a self-inflicted injury
on the part of the deceased. There is no evidence in this
regard. There is no investigation to that effect. No attempt is
made to collect the statement of the locomotive drivers or the
guards. The fact that the deceased was found on the railway
track with the injury marks that could only be caused by a
moving train, makes it appear that the deceased fell off a
moving train or slipped from the moving train. The fact that
the deceased was seen off at the railway station by his brother-
in-law (AW.2) makes it more than evident that the deceased
did board the train to travel from Sedam to Gulbarga and fell
from the train between Sedam and Malkhed Railway Stations.
It is impossible for a passenger in a moving train to throw
himself out and land on the railway track. Hence, the only
probability is that he must have slipped from the train and fell
and suffered injuries. It is relevant to note that the evidence
adduced by AW.1 and AW.2 is probable and therefore, it could
be held that the deceased died due to the injuries suffered due
NC: 2024:KHC:7904
to an accidental fall from a moving train. The railway
administration failed to establish that the death of Sri
Thippanna was not due to fall from a moving train and due to a
self inflicted injury. In that view of the matter, the assumption
of the Tribunal that the deceased was not carrying a train ticket
and therefore, was not a bona fide passenger cannot be
accepted.
12. In view of the above, the impugned judgment
passed by the Tribunal warrants interference. Therefore, this
appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 11.03.2019
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in
Application No.OA II U 024 of 2017 is set aside and the claim
petition filed by the appellants/applicants is allowed. The
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till
today and 9% thereafter. If the compensation and interest is
less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the applicants/appellants would
be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. However,
if it exceeds Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants would be
entitled to that excess amount, as per the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi [AIR
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7904
2018 SC 2362]. Upon deposit, 20% of the compensation shall
be released in favour of the appellant Nos.1 and 6 jointly and
the remaining shall be deposited equally in the names of
appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 in a nationalized Bank for a period
of 5 years or till they attain the age of majority, whichever is
later.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMA
