Karnataka High Court
Smt Lavanya vs Union Of India on 16 January, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
MFA No. 7177 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7177 OF 2022 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAVANYA
W/O PRADEEP K C
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
2. SRI CHANDRAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
3. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T 4. KUMAR GAGAN DEEP P
Location: HIGH S/O PRADEEP K C
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS
REP. BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER
GUARDIAN - APPELLANT NO.1
PRESENTLY ALL ARE R/O P KODIHALLI
GAJRE, KADUR, CHICKMAGALUR
KARNATAKA 577140.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. THARA M, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
MFA No. 7177 of 2022
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KUSHALAPPA B M, CGC)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DT.14.06.2022 PASSED ON OAIIU NO.57/2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
BENCH, SECUNDERABAD AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the rejection of claim
made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench,
Secunderabad.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the Railway Tribunal that the wife, minor son and
the parents of the deceased Pradeep K C have filed the
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
claim petition under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 read with Section 124A and 125 of Indian
Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.10/- lakh
on account of the death of the passenger who traveled in
the train and an untoward incident that occurred on
18.02.2018.
4. It is the case of the claimants that on
18.02.2018, the deceased was traveled from Bengaluru to
Kadur to get the ration card. When the train was moving
in between KM No.00/900-01/000 'A' line in between
Bangalore-Yeshwanthpura railway station, Bangalore city
due to heavy crowd and push from the back, the deceased
slipped and fell down and succumbed to the injuries. The
railway department filed the written statement disputing
the claim of the claimants contending that the claim does
not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124-
A of Indian Railways Act, 1989. It is further contended
that the case is not of an accidental fall from the train and
it is a case of suspicious death. Hence, the claim petition
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
is not maintainable. The death is not an untoward incident
and it is only a self criminal act. Hence, the claimants are
not entitled for any compensation. It is also contended
that journey ticket filed by the applicants does not belongs
to the deceased.
5. In order to prove the case of the claimants, first
claimant examined herself as AW1 and marked the
documents at Ex.A1 to A17. On the other hand, the
respondent-railway department not examined any
witnesses however, marked the document at Ex.R1. The
Tribunal taking into note of the material available on
record and also considering the PM report comes to the
conclusion that there are no injuries to the half of the body
including head, face, chest or ribs. The position of the
body noted in the photographs placed on the file does not
appear to be that of a person who has fallen down from
the train. The Tribunal also made an observation that it is
a suspicious death. It looks as if the deceased has laid
himself on the track deliberately as the two portions of the
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
body are lying abutting each other. Had it been a fall from
train, the amputated part would be thrown out. The key
man also says that a man has been run over. Had the
deceased been thrown off from a train, he would have
sustained number of injuries all over his body, which has
not happened in this case. The circumstances in this case
clearly points to a case of suicide rather than accidental
fall from the train. In respect of ticket is concerned, it is
observed that the same is implanted and except the
statement from his wife that he left home to travel by
Shimoga to Kadur, no material is placed. Hence,
disbelieved the claim and rejected the claim petition.
6. The counsel appearing for the appellants would
vehemently contend that the very approach of the Tribunal
is erroneous. The Tribunal has failed to take note of the
evidence of the wife of the deceased wherein she deposed
that the deceased left the house to go to the Kadur. The
counsel would vehemently contend that in the final report
it is very clear that the deceased had sustained the
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
injuries and the observation made by the Tribunal that
there are no injuries all over the body cannot be accepted.
The counsel would vehemently contend that the report
submitted by the officer of the RPF who conducted the
mahazar categorically stated that body was lying on the
track and the very reasoning given by the Tribunal is
against the report of the RPF. The Tribunal also
committed an error in making such observation without
looking into the material available on record and even not
examined any witnesses hence, the reasoning given by the
Tribunal is only an assumption and not on the evidence
available on record.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent would vehemently contend that the
Tribunal rightly comes to the conclusion that there are no
injuries all over the body and in paragraph 12 of the order,
the Tribunal clearly discussed with regard to the nature of
injuries sustained by the deceased and also an observation
is made that there have been a number of occasions
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
where the ticket has been planted due to unhealthy
collusion between police and the applicants. This
possibility seems to be more since, there are no eye
witnesses to the travel of the deceased, his purchasing of
a ticket or boarding any train. Hence, suspected the death
as a suicide and not as an untoward incident.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
available on record, the points that would arise for the
consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether the Tribunal has committed an
error in dismissing the claim petition?
2. What order?
Point No.1
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
available on record, it is not in dispute that the death of
the deceased was occurred on the railway track. The wife
has been examined as AW1 and got marked the railway
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
ticket as Ex.A1. No doubt, in the cross-examination, she
says that she did not visit the accident spot. It is elicited
from her mouth that the investigating authority have
informed her that they found the ticket in the pocket of
pant of the deceased. Ex.A2 is the report of key man and
his statement is also very clear that train has run over and
killed him in a particular junction. The PM report is marked
as Ex.A3. Having perused the PM report it discloses that
the death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of
crush injury sustained and body was separated into two
halves at the level of L2, L3 abdomen and external injuries
also noted in the PM report. The other documents is with
regard to the family i.e., Aadhar card, bank passbook and
also the death certificate of deceased. Inquest report is
marked as Ex.A10 and in column No.7 of inquest report, it
discloses that there are fractures on both the hands and
there are injuries on the mouth and also on the forehead
and all over the body there are scratch marks.
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
10. Having perused column No.7 of inquest it is
clear that there are injuries on the face and also on the
forehead. But the observation made by the Tribunal that
there are no injuries on the upper body and only on the
lower part of the body, there are injuries. Hence, this
observation of the Tribunal is erroneous. It is also
important to note that Ex.A1 is produced before the
Tribunal to show that the deceased was traveled in the
train. None of the witnesses have been examined on
behalf of the respondent. But, the Tribunal while
considering Ex.A1 made an erroneous observation in an
assumption that as far as ticket is concerned, in a cases
like this, there have been a number of occasions where
the ticket has been planted due to unhealthy collusion
between police and the applicants. But the material
available on record discloses that the ticket was collected
from the pocket of the deceased thus, the observation
made by the Tribunal with regard to Ex.A1 is erroneous.
The Tribunal also observed that it is a case of suicide and
not a case of untoward incident. But in order to come to
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
such a conclusion also, the railway authority have not
examined any of the witnesses hence, said finding of the
Tribunal is also an assumption and presumption.
11. The Tribunal made an observation that there is
only a statement of the wife of the deceased that the
deceased left the home to travel from Shimoga to Kadur to
get ration card but the Tribunal failed prove the said fact
by examining the witnesses that the deceased was not
traveled in the train and not purchased the ticket. Hence,
such observation is erroneous. The Tribunal cannot claim
that there are no eye witnesses to say that the deceased
has purchased the ticket when the prima facie ticket was
placed before the Tribunal and he is a bona fide
passengers of a travel. The finding given by the Tribunal is
against the inquest report. No doubt, final report is not
placed before the Court. But the fact that the report was
submitted by the RPF and the same is also taken note of
by the Tribunal but fails to give any reason with regard to
the final report submitted by the railway police. Ex.A2 is
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
also clear that the key man categorically stated that train
is run over and killed the deceased by moving in between
KM No.00/900-01/000 'A' line in between Bangalore-
Yeshwanthpura railway station. But the Tribunal failed to
consider all these materials and committed an error and
even fails to look into Ex.A3 - PM report wherein it is
clearly discloses that the deceased has sustained injuries
and death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of
crush injury sustained. The observation made by the
Tribunal that there are no injuries over the upper body of
the deceased is against the records available on record.
Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to
the such a conclusion that the deceased is not a bona fide
passenger and also the ticket is implanted. In order to
come to a conclusion that ticket is implanted at the
instance of the police, no material is placed before the
Tribunal. As I have already pointed out that the ticket is
recovered from the pocket of the deceased at the time of
mahazar, the very reasoning given by the Tribunal is
against the material available on record, thus, it requires
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2008
interference. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered as
Affirmative.
Point No.2
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The impugned order dated 14.06.2022
passed in OAIIU No.57/2018 by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench at
Secunderabad is set aside. Consequently, the
claim petition is allowed by granting an amount
of Rs.8/- lakh as compensation with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of accident.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
