Karnataka High Court

S Ranganatha vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                            -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:41944
                                                     MFA No. 7159 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                          BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7159 OF 2021 (RCT)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    S RANGANATHA
                         S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
                         OCCUPATION

                   2.    LALITHA
                         W/O RANGANATHA
                         AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

                         BOTH ARE R/O 398, INDIRANAGARA
                         ASHRAYA BAAVANE, LINGADAHALLI ROAD
                         BIRUR, KADUR TALUK
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M              CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577116
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                   ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
                   (BY SRI RAJA SUBRAHMANYA BHAT B, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   UNION OF INDIA
                   REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER
                   SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
                   HUBLI
                                                        ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI VAIBHAV RAVI MALIMATH, ADVOCATE)
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:41944
                                        MFA No. 7159 of 2021




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL       ACT,   1987   AGAINST   THE   ORDER    DATED
30.09.2021        PASSED IN OA NO. II (U) 59/2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS           TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
BENCH AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH



                       ORAL JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the

order dated 30.09.2021 passed in OA II (U) No.59/2018

by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengalure (for short 'the

Tribunal').

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants

before the Tribunal is that on 21.02.2017 at about 10.30

p.m., the father of the deceased by name Ranganatha

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

dropped the deceased - Manoj Kumar at Birur railway

station and provided him a railway ticket to go to

Davanagere and returned home from the railway station.

The deceased traveled in the said train and accidentally he

fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the

injuries and body was found at KM No.211/700-800 upline

in between Birur and Nagavangala railway station. On the

next day i.e., on 22.02.2017, at about 9.00 a.m., the

father of the deceased received a phone call from the

railway police stating that dead body of a male person was

found in the railway line. Immediately the father of the

deceased rushed to the spot and identified the body. It is

claim of the claimants that railway ticket was lost and

made the claim before the Tribunal.

4. The respondent appeared and filed the written

statement denying that the deceased was not a bonafide

passenger and the facts leading to the incident in question

as narrated in the application do not constitute an

untoward incident and the claim does not fall within the

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

ambit of Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railway

Act. It is also contended that said accident is not on

account of railway accident.

5. The claimants in order to substantiate their

claim examined first claimant as AW1 and got marked the

documents at Ex.A1 to A12. None was examined on behalf

of respondent and DRM report is filed and marked as

Ex.R1. The Tribunal having considered both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record comes to the

conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide

passenger and hence, dismissed the claim petition. Being

aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the present appeal

is filed before this Court.

6. The main contention of the appellants before

this Court is that inspite of no evidence was adduced by

the respondent, the Tribunal committed an error in coming

to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide

passenger. It is contended that a damaged phone handset

of the victim was recovered along with some cash and

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

railway police also in terms of Ex.A4 opined that death was

due to accident and Ex.R1 is the created document by the

department in order to escape from the liability. The final

report at Ex.A5 is very clear that he fell down from the

running train and he had sustained injuries and PM report

also clearly discloses the nature of the injuries. The

counsel in support of his arguments would vehemently

contend that the railway police themselves have

investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet stating

that it was an accidental death. When the respondent has

not lead any evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have

presumed that he was not a bonafide passenger.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent files written arguments contending that

facts which are essential to adjudicate the matter are not

pleaded and essential witnesses are not brought before

the Court to prove the case. In order to prove that the

deceased was a bonafide passenger, he has not produced

any material before the Tribunal and no details of train

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

journey was given by the father who had been examined

as AW1 and he has failed to mention the details of train

number, cost of ticket, time of arrival and in order to

prove the case, the said details are necessary. AW1 has

not mentioned any of these details in his examination in

chief and documents which have been placed also do not

disclose anything about the said fact and also not

examined any material witnesses to prove the factum that

the deceased had traveled in the said train.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent in

support of his written arguments placed document No.1

i.e., examination-in-chief of AW1 and document No.2 i.e.,

statement of AW1. The counsel also brought to notice of

this Court to the translated version wherein AW1 says that

he took the deceased into the railway station and he only

bought the ticket and provided the same to the deceased

and thereafter, he returned to the home. The mother of

the deceased also reiterated the same. The counsel also

relied upon document No.3 i.e., case diary. The counsel

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

also would vehemently contend that DRM report at Ex.R1

is very clear that on enquiry and investigation, nothing is

found that he was traveled in the train.

9. In reply to the arguments, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants relies upon the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of Civil Appeal

No.8605/2024 dated 09.08.2024 between DOLI RANI

SAHA vs INION OF INDIA and in the said case, the

earlier judgment of Rina Devi's case was referred and

brought to notice of this Court with regard to shifting of

burden on the railway once the affidavit is filed before the

Court. The counsel also relies upon paragraph 17 of the

said judgment wherein discussion was made with regard

to the fact that the deceased fell down from the train and

nature of injuries sustained by him and merely because he

is not having railway ticket, is not a ground to discard the

claim.

10. In reply to this submission, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent relies upon the judgment of

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

the Apex Court reported in (2019) 12 SCC 391 in the

case of KAMRUNNISSA vs UNION OF INDIA and

brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 8 and

10 wherein the Apex Court not accepted the case of the

appellant when the Tribunal and also the High Court

rejected the claim petition and comes to the conclusion

that in view of the factual position depicted in the FIR, as

also the inquest report, we find no justification in

entertaining a challenge to the orders passed by the

Railway Claims Tribunal, as also by the High Court, while

rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

11. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court

to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2019) 3

SCC 572 in the case of UNION OF INDIA vs RINA

DEVI. The counsel would vehemently contend that in this

case, the independent witness was examined for having

purchased the ticket by the deceased and boarding the

train and he filed an affidavit stating these facts. The

counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

that in the case on hand also no such evidence is placed

before the Trial Court. The counsel brought to notice of

this Court to the discussion made by the Apex Court in

paragraph 29 of the said judgment wherein it is held that

mere presence of a body in railway premises will not be

conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona

fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be

maintained. However, mere absence of a ticket with such

injured or deceased will not negative the claim but he was

a bona fide passenger. Initial burden on claimant can be

discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts and

burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be

decided on the facts shown or the attending

circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case

to case on the basis of facts found.

12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the respective parties and also perusal of the principles

laid down in the judgments referred supra, this Court has

to examine the material available on record and in keeping

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

the contentions urged by the parties, the point that arises

for the consideration of this Court is:

Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and whether it requires interference of this Court?

13. Having head the learned counsel appearing for

the parties and also on perusal of the material available on

record, it discloses that the claim of the claimants that on

21.02.2017 at about 10.30 p.m., the father of the

deceased Ranganatha dropped the deceased Manoj Kumar

to the railway station at Birur to go to Davanagere and he

returned from the railway station to his house. On the

next day morning, he received the information regarding

death of his son and immediately, he went along with his

family members and identified the dead body. The

claimants in order to substantiate their claim, mainly relies

upon the document at Ex.A1-FIR wherein it discloses the

date and place of occurrence of the accident i.e., at

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

8.00 a.m., on 22.02.2017 between Birur-Nagavangala

railway station upline, body was found and the same was

intimated by one Srinivas Rao, Keyman to the Station

Master. Other document is Ex.A2- intimation given by the

said Srinivas Rao. Ex.A3 is the PM report which clearly

discloses that the cause of death is due to shock and

hemorrhage due to polytraumatic injuries. The other

document is inquest report at Ex.A4 wherein also it is

stated that father had dropped the deceased at Birur

railway station at 10.30 p.m. and there is a reference with

regard to the fact that the deceased was traveled in the

train. In the inquest it is very clear that body was with a

cement coloured cotton shirt, blue coloured jeans pant,

blue colour underwear and torn out 5 notes of 100

denomination and some paper pieces were found and

except these materials, no other valuables were found.

14. It is important to note that final report was filed

by the railway police and the same is marked as Ex.A5

wherein also details are mentioned with regard to having

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

purchase of ticket and given to the deceased and final

report discloses that while traveling in the train to

Davanagere, he accidentally fell down and there is no

suspicion about the same and the same reason was given

by the mother of the deceased and mahazar was also

drawn and on verification and investigation, it is

mentioned in the final report that while traveling, the

deceased accidentally fell down and sustained injuries.

15. Having perused these materials before the

Court and also the evidence of AW1, no doubt, throughout

in all the records i.e., FIR, inquest report as well as final

report, it is mentioned that the deceased fell down

accidentally from the train while traveling to Davanagere

but the main observation of the Tribunal that he was not a

bonafide passenger only on the ground that no ticket was

found in the body except the other articles. It is also

important to note that in the cross-examination of AW1,

he says that he had dropped his son at 10.30 p.m., in his

vehicle at the Birur railway station and he stood therein

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

and saw the deceased purchasing the ticket. No doubt,

there is a contradiction with regard to purchasing of the

ticket since throughout, the father of the deceased claims

that he only purchased the ticket and handed over the

same to the deceased. But the fact that he came and

dropped the deceased to the railway station at 10.30 p.m.

and same has not been denied during the cross-

examination of AW1. Apart from that Tribunal only relies

upon DRM report and the said report is self styled report.

On perusal of the final report wherein the railway police

themselves have conducted the investigation and filed the

report stating that the deceased fell down from the train

while proceeding to Davanagere and it was an accidental

death. No doubt, the said fact is reiterated by the father

and mother of the deceased and also the final report

discloses the same and PM report discloses the nature of

the injuries sustained by the deceased.

16. Having perused the reasoning given by the

Tribunal appears that Tribunal proceeded in an erroneous

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

manner by giving the reasons that the father of the

deceased has not given the details of ticket and cost of the

ticket and same is not warranted only he had spoken with

regard to dropping of his son to the railway station and

boarding the train by the deceased but mainly comes to

the conclusion that the cost of the ticket is not stated by

the father and so also in the deposition before the Court

and the same is not the material to dismiss the claim

petition. The material is that whether the deceased had

traveled in the train or not and whether the father of the

deceased had dropped his son at Birur railway station or

not. Disputing the fact that the father of the deceased had

not dropped him to the railway station, nothing is elicited

from the mouth of AW1 and making such observation,

Tribunal comes to the conclusion that this is quite

surprising since as the deceased only bought the ticket, he

would have enquired at the time of purchase of ticket,

which train would be available for travel to Davanagere.

This observation is erroneous. If no train passes in the

said station, the railway authority will not issue the ticket

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

and it is not the case of the railway authority that train

was not passes through in the said railway station at

10.40 p.m. and that is not their case and except relying

upon DRM report, nothing is placed on record by the

respondent. No doubt, it is evident from the records that

at the distance of 1 to 1½ k.m. from the residence of the

deceased, body was found and merely the residence of the

deceased is situated near the railway station is not a

ground to disbelieve the contention of the claimants and

Tribunal comes to erroneous conclusion that he was not a

bonafide passenger.

17. No doubt, the judgment relied upon by the

appellant in the case of Doli Rani Saha, the Apex Court

also discussed the judgment of Rina Devi's case with

regard to the burden is concerned and AW1 categorically

stated that he himself has dropped the deceased to travel

from Birur to Davanagere and the very contention of the

respondent that they have not examined the aunt of the

deceased cannot be a ground to disbelieve the case of the

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

appellants. The material discloses that the deceased did

not reach the house of aunt which is located at

Davanagere and while traveling to Davanagere only,

accident was occurred and once he has filed an affidavit,

no doubt, the burden shifts on the respondent and the

respondent has not discharged its burden.

18. No doubt, the counsel for the respondent relied

upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of

Kamrunnissa wherein the Apex Court dismissed the claim

made by the appellants in accepting the reasoning given

by the Tribunal as well as the High Court and so also in

the judgment of Rina Devi's case, particularly in

paragraph 29, it is held that mere presence of a body in

railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured

or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for

compensation could be maintained. However, mere

absence of a ticket with such injured or deceased will not

negative the claim but he was a bona fide passenger.

Initial burden on claimant can be discharged by filing an

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

affidavit of relevant facts and burden will then shift on the

Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown

or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt

with from case to case on the basis of facts found.

19. In the case on hand, the claimants have

examined the father of the deceased as AW1 wherein he

categorically deposed that he only dropped his son to the

railway station and bought the ticket and gave to his son

and final report filed by the police themselves is very clear

that the death was occurred due to accidental fall and also

an affidavit was filed to that effect. This Court already

pointed out that before the Tribunal not disputed the fact

that father had dropped the deceased but mere

discrepancy with regard to purchasing of ticket cannot be

a sole ground to discard the evidence of AW1 and from the

date of registration of case i.e.,. FIR, inquest and final

report, all goes against the railway department and also

Ex.A5 is clear that railway police only investigated the

matter and filed the final report wherein they categorically

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

mentioned that it is an accidental death and untoward

incident was taken place while traveling from Birur to

Davanagere. When such being the material available on

record, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the case of

the appellants and only based on the self styled report at

Ex.R1 and it cannot held that no such untoward incident

was taken place and the very contention of the respondent

cannot be accepted when the material available on record

clearly discloses that it is an untoward incident taken place

while traveling from Birur to Davanagere. Hence, the

material available on record was not considered in a

proper perspective by the Tribunal and hence, the Tribunal

committed an error in coming to such a conclusion that

the deceased was not a bonafide passenger only on the

ground that he was not having the ticket, apart from that

he was having other material which was found in the dead

body i.e., phone, cash, piece of papers. It is important to

note that when the body was noticed by the keyman and

he reported the same to the Station Master and mere

missing of a ticket, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the

- 19 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41944

case of the claimants since railway employee only found

the body at the first instance. Hence, it requires

interference of this Court. Thus, I answer the above point

as Affirmative.

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

the following:

ORDER

a) The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed.

b) The award dated 30.09.2021 passed in OA II(U)

No.59/2018 by the Tribunal is set aside.

c) The claimants are entitled for Rs.8 lakh with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of

filing the claim application till its realization.