Karnataka High Court
Aruna G V vs Ui/Swr/Gm on 23 November, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A. NO.4094/2016 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
ARUNA G.V.
W/O G.V.GIRISH LATE
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
PERMANENTLY R/O. D.NO.3-3-1,
MUKKARIPETA, HINDUPUR,
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT,
ANDRA PRADESH.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UI/SWR/GM,
HUBLI,
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI-580030.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H SHANTHIBHUSHAN, DSG)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF RAILWAY
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
08.03.2016 PASSED IN OA II U 41/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING
THE APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION AND ETC.
2
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 30.10.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV JUDGMENT
This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the
order dated 08.03.2016 passed in OA II U 41/2013 on the file
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short
'Tribunal').
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent and
arguments on the respondent's side is taken as nil.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before
the Tribunal is that on 13.07.2012 at about 11.45 a.m., husband
of the appellant one G V Girish was travelling from Hindupur to
Ananthapur being a bonafide passenger in a train and the train
was overcrowded, the said Girish was forced to stand near the
door of the compartment and due to jerk and jolt of the train, he
fell down loosing his balance from the running train at K.M.
No.102/00-100 in between Hindupur-Mulugu station and
sustained severe injuries and died at the spot.
4. The respondent appeared and filed the statement of
objections denying the fact that the deceased was a bonafide
passenger and incident did not occur due to fall from the train
since there was no detention of train and no guard or driver of
the train reported any such untoward incident to the nearest
Station Master. Hence, prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the claim
petition.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal
framed the following Issues:
1. Whether there was any untoward incident as is
defined under the provisions of Section 123(c) of
the 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?
6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings of the parties,
allowed them to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case,
the wife of the deceased examined herself as AW1 and also
examined one more witness as AW2 and got marked the
documents as Ex.A1 to A10. On the other hand, respondent not
led any evidence but got marked the DRM investigation report as
Ex.R1. The Tribunal after considering the material available on
record the dismissed the claim petition in coming to the
conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger since
there is no untoward incident taken place and hence, the
claimant is not entitled for any relief. Being aggrieved by the
order of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed before this
Court.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing
the claim petition and passed an arbitrary order and fails to
appreciate both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record. The counsel would vehemently contend that the
deceased was traveling to Ananthapur to meet his friend
Nagaraju for seeking financial assistance. There was no occasion
to disbelieve the evidence of AW1 and AW2 and the respondent
not produced any material to show that the deceased was not a
bonafide passenger, thus, the Tribunal committed an error in
relying upon only the document at Ex.R1. The evidence of AW2
is very clear that he only took the deceased and dropped him to
the railway station and he witnessed purchasing the railway
ticket by the deceased and nothing is elicited from his mouth to
disbelieve his evidence. But the Tribunal comes to an erroneous
conclusion that AW1 not spoken anything about the evidence of
AW2 and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, cannot
consider the claim petition. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that the documents i.e., FIR, Final Report and Inquest
Report have not been considered by the Tribunal and
erroneously comes to the conclusion that the deceased was not
traveled in the train. Hence, it requires interference of this
Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and also considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo as
well as on perusal of the material available on record, the point
that would arise for consideration of this Court is:
Whether the Tribunal committed an error in
dismissing the claim petition and whether it requires
interference?
9. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that
on 13.07.2012 at about 11.45 a.m., the deceased was travelling
in the train from Hindupur to Ananthapur and accidentally, he
fell down from the running train at K.M. No.102/00-100 situated
in between Hindupur-Malugu station. The deceased had
informed in the house that he is going for work and he took
Rs.300/- from his friend by name Venkataramudu to go to
Ananthapur to seek financial assistance from another friend by
name Nagaraju at Ananthapur and thus, while travelling in the
train, the said untoward incident was occurred. The appellant
who is the wife of the deceased, reiterated the same in her
examination-in-chief and she was cross-examined and she says
that her husband was working in a printing press and he left the
house at 9.00 a.m. and the printing press is located at Hindupur.
But it is elicited that she does not know the name of the place or
village where her husband fell down on the date of incident i.e.,
on 13.07.2012 but she deposed that she had received the
information about the death of her husband at 10.00 p.m. The
appellant also relied upon the document at Ex.A1-FIR and the
same was registered under UDR No.44/2012 based on the
message of on duty Station Master - K B Raja Rao, Hindupur
Railway Station and Ex.A9 also discloses that on 13.07.2012 at
12.00 hours, B Narayana S/o Narasaiah, Keyman G.No.01 PKD
section noticed a male dead body aged about 35 years at K.M.
No.102/00-100 between HUP-MLU by side of track and
requested to take necessary action. The other document is
Ex.A2-PM report which discloses the nature of injuries and cause
of death. The other document is Ex.A3 - Final Report drawn by
the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hindupur Railway Station who has
concluded the case as accidental death. The other document is
Ex.A4-Inquest Report which discloses the history of the alleged
incident stating that the accident occurred in a particular place.
On the other hand, the respondent did not choose to examine
any witnesses but got marked the DRM investigation report at
Ex.R1 wherein the Investigating Officer has concluded that on
enquiry, it has come to light that there is no evidence of eye-
witness to say that the deceased person has traveled in the train
and none of them noticed the same and did not find any journey
ticket and hence, report is submitted stating that the deceased
was not a bonafide passenger.
10. The Tribunal having considered the material
available on record comes to the conclusion that there is lot of
discrepancies in the evidence before the Tribunal since AW1 not
spoken anything about the evidence of AW2 i.e., AW2 had come
and picked the deceased and dropped him to the railway station
at Hindupur and AW1 says that her relatives informed her about
the alleged accident only after two to three days hence, the
Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there is no corroborative
evidence to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger at
the time of the incident even though AW2 brought before the
Tribunal as a witness who deposed that he only dropped the
deceased to the Hindupur railway station and he saw the
deceased purchasing the ticket. The evidence of AW1 is not
credible. Thus, the Tribunal disbelieved the claim of the
appellant and dismissed the claim petition.
11. Having considered the reason given by the Tribunal
and also on perusal of the material available on record
particularly, the evidence of AW1 and AW2, it discloses that
though AW1 did not disclose the fact that AW2 came and picked
the deceased and the same is not a fundamental infraction.
AW1 categorically stated that the deceased did not attend to his
duty but he informed her that he is going to Ananthapur to seek
financial assistance from his friend and in corroboration to this
evidence, AW2 also specifically deposed that he met him since
he had been to his house and he requested him to drop to
Hindupur railway station and accordingly, he dropped the
deceased at around 11.00 a.m. and he witnessed purchasing of
ticket from the deceased i.e., Yeshwanthpur-Vijayawada
passenger train ticket and also stated that he was at the counter
along with the deceased. But in the cross-examination, nothing
is elicited with regard that he was present while boarding the
train.
12. It is important to note that the Station Master had
informed about the death of the deceased that one male person
dead body aged about 35 years found at railway track
K.M.NO.102/11-100 in between Hindupur-Malugu Station. It is
also important to note that incident took place at about 11.45
hours and information received immediately i.e., about 12.35
hours and FIR also registered wherein it discloses that
B Narayana, Keyman noticed a male dead body aged about 35
years and information was given to the Station Master and
hence, there was no any delay in informing about the alleged
incident and the same is evident in Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the PM
report which clearly discloses that there are multiple injuries and
head injury and death is due to hemorrhage and shock, about 24
to 34 hours. The final report is at Ex.A3 and the said report is
very clear that it is an accidental death. In the report it is
mentioned that deceased was travelling in the train and he was
fell down from the running train accidentally and died. It is also
specific that due to accidental fall from the running train, the
deceased died and the said report also discloses the nature of
injuries and cause of death. These documents have not been
disputed by the respondent before the Tribunal. Inspite of that,
the Tribunal committed an error in not relying upon these
documents but comes to the conclusion that there is a
discrepancy in the evidence of AW1 and AW2 and there is no
corroborative evidence to show that the deceased was a
bonafide passenger at the time of the incident though AW2
deposed that he only dropped the deceased to the Hindupur
railway station and he saw the deceased purchasing the ticket
and the deceased had boarded the train and the said fact cannot
be deposed by AW1 who is not the eye-witness and AW2 is the
eye-witness. Not deposing the said fact by AW1 is not a ground
to dismiss the claim petition. Hence, the Tribunal committed an
error in coming to such a conclusion and the reasoning given by
the Tribunal requires interference. The Tribunal cannot expect
mathematical niceties while considering the claim petition when
AW2 specifically deposed before the Tribunal regarding dropped
the deceased to the railway station and he purchased the ticket.
Thus, the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition and
it requires interference.
13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment dated 08.03.2016
passed in OA II U 41/2013 by the Tribunal is
hereby set aside. Consequently, the claim
application is allowed.
(iii) The appellant is entitled for compensation to
the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest
@ 7% p.a., from the date of filing the claim
application till its realization. It is made clear
that after applying the rate of interest, if the
final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the
appellant shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-.
(iv) The amount of compensation be satisfied by
the respondent within a period of eight weeks.
(v) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
