Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shruthi @ Drakshayani vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
MFA No. 6854 of 2018
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.6854 OF 2018 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHRUTHI @ DRAKSHAYANI
W/O LATE RAJA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
2. KUMARI JYOTHI
D/O LATE RAJA,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
MINOR,
3. KUMARI ANKITH
Digitally signed D/O LATE RAJA,
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
Location: HIGH MINOR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
[APPLICANTS No.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
AND HENCE, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN, APPELLANT NO.1
SMT.SHRUTHI @ DRAKSHAYANI]
R/AT NO.110, AMEER AHMED COLONY
NEAR RAILWAY STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
MFA No. 6854 of 2018
NOW AT BELLARY CAMP BACKSIDE,
BIRUR TOWN AT AND POST-577116
KADUR TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE
4. SMT. VIJAYA
W/O ANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
5. SRI. ANNAPPA
S/O ANTHONIPPA @ VIGNASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
APPELLANTS 4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT NO.726, AMEER AHAMED COLONY
NEAR RAILWAY STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
KARNATAKA STATE
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAJA SUBRAHMANYA BHAT B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAY VENUGOPAL, CGC)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23 OF THE RCT ACT, 1987,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.12.2017
PASSED ON OA. II U 2010/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
MFA No. 6854 of 2018
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This MFA is filed challenging the dismissal order
dated 20.12.2017 passed in OA II U 210/2013 by the
Railway Claims Tribunal (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 19.07.2011 when the
deceased was traveling from Bengaluru to Shivamogga in
the train along with his brother - Francis in order to return
back to their native place at Shivamogga, both of them
have purchased the ticket and boarded the general
compartment on train No.16201. When the train was
between Gollahalli and Doddabale railway station, near
RKM No.032/100-200, the deceased is alleged to have
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
accidentally fallen down from the running train due to jolt
and jerk and he grievous head injury and died on the spot.
The brother of the deceased who was traveling with him
saw him falling and shouted and other co-passengers
caused the train to stop. On alighting from the train which
stopped at a distance of about 100 meters, his brother
saw him dead. Hence, the claimants made the claim
before the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent
appeared and filed the written statement denying that he
was not a bonafide passenger at the relevant time of the
aforesaid incident. It is case of suspicious death and not
an untoward incident. It is also contended that deceased
became a victim of his own criminal act and careless
attitude. Hence, it is very clear that the deceased was not
traveled in the said train bearing No.16201. Hence, the
claimants have not entitled for any compensation.
5. The Tribunal framed the four Issues and 1st
applicant who is the wife of the deceased examined as
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
AW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.A1 to A11. The
respondent-Railways did not adduce any oral evidence,
but only produced the DRM's investigation report which is
marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal, on perusal of both oral
and documentary evidence placed on record held that no
doubt that the body was found lying near the track
between the upline and the down line of Gollahalli and
Doddabale railway station as the same is clear from the
message given to the GRP by SM/YPR on 19.07.2011 at
15.00 hours. On close scrutiny of the document, it is seen
that the keyman reported that he saw the body lying by
the side of the track, whereas as per the deposition of
AW1, brother of the deceased was traveling along with the
deceased whose statement was recorded and same is
marked as Ex.A4. In the said statement, Francis, brother
of the deceased has stated that he had purchased the
ticket for himself and for the deceased as well and had
handed over the ticket to the deceased. He also stated
that they traveled by train No.16201 - Intercity Express
and the deceased had accidentally fell from the train. The
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
Tribunal taking into note of the same held that the said
Francis who was accompanying the deceased was not
examined before this Tribunal as his evidence would have
been very vital for the purpose of proving this incident as
an untoward incident. The said Francis who was an eye-
witness to the incident is none other than the younger
brother of the deceased. The reasons for not getting him
examined as witness in this case by the applicants is quite
baffling. The reason for not keeping him examined as
witness in this case by the applicants, no explanation on
the part of the claimants. And there was no information
available on record to show that the train was stopped
after the alleged incident. The police have drawn the
inquest at the spot in the presence of the Francis.
According to AW1, statement of Francis was marked as
Ex.A4 wherein it discloses that Francis had purchased the
ticket and handed over the same to the deceased. Then, if
the inquest was drawn almost immediately and Francis
was present at that time, how was the ticket not
recovered from the body. Hence, the Tribunal comes to
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
the conclusion that the incident did not occur on account
of fall from train, but was due to some other reasons.
Perhaps, while deceased and his brother were walking
close to the track unaware of movement of train, the
deceased might have come in contact with a moving train
resulting in sustaining injuries and death. Hence, the
Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the very claim made
by the claimants is suspicious and dismissed the claim
petition.
6. The counsel for the appellants would
vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an
error in rejecting the claim petition and failed to appreciate
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. His
contention is that the victim and his brother boarded the
train at about 1.30 p.m. from Bengaluru and not specified
the train number which can be seen from the statement at
Ex.A4. It was also produced by the respondent and
induction of the train number was by the respondent. In
the final report it was concluded that death of the victim
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
was due to accidental fall from the moving train. Inspite of
it, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the
conclusion the deceased was not a bonafide passenger
hence, the very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent would vehemently contend that when the
train number is specifically mentioned and the said train
departures Bengaluru only at 4.30 p.m., it is clear that
either the deceased or his brother traveled in the said
train and only colluding with the police, created the
document and made the claim. The counsel would submit
that when the train departures at 4.30 p.m., the question
of lying body at 3.00 p.m. and recovered the same and
conducted the inquest prior to the departure of the train
does not arise. Thus, the same is very clear that a
fraudulent claim is made before the Tribunal and the same
has been noticed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also made
an observation that even if the brother of the deceased
was traveled along with the deceased ought to have been
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
examined him but not examined and if he had been
examined, real truth would have been come out and
hence, he was not examined with an intention to make the
wrongful claim. The Tribunal also assigned the reason
while rejecting the claim petition and hence, it does not
requires any interference.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
available on record, the point that would arise for the
consideration of this ct is:
Whether the Tribunal committed an error in
coming to the conclusion that the deceased was
not a bonafide passenger and not traveled in the
said train and the death is not on account of
untoward incident?
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
available on record, it discloses that on 19.07.2011, the
deceased - Raja traveled along with his brother - Francis
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
and the deceased accidentally fell down from the moving
train and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries
between Gollahalli and Doddabale railway station at 15.00
hours. On the other hand, it is the contention of the
respondent that the intercity train No.16201 starts from
Bengaluru at 4.30 p.m passes the spot of the alleged
incident at 7.00 p.m and not at 3.00 p.m. as claimed by
the claimants and thus, the very claim is doubtful. No
doubt, the wife of the deceased has been examined as
AW1 before the Tribunal and AW1 is only a hearsay
witness who speaks about the incident only on the
document as well as the oral evidence.
10. In the cross-examination of AW1 she
categorically deposed that on the date of incident, her
husband along with his brother had gone for painting work
and both of them left Bengaluru at about 7.00 p.m. and
she came to know about the incident but she did not go to
the spot and her brother-in-law was at the spot and she
also did not enquire as how the incident has occurred and
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
also she did not remember the date when her statement
was recorded by the police. The witness denies the
suggestion that her husband at no point of time had
travelled with is brother -Francis at train No.16201 and
also denies the suggestion that by colluding with the
police, the said claim was made.
11. It is also important to note that the respondent
has not examined any of the witnesses except marking
DRM report at Ex.R1. On perusal of Ex.A1 it is clear that
the incident was taken place at the distance of 27 k.m.,
from Yashwanthpur police station and information was
received at 15.05 hours and information was also sent on
the very same day at 15.30 hours. It is also important to
note that keyman has sent the information as per Ex.A2
and same was received at 15.05 hours and FIR was
registered. The inquest also conducted as per Ex.A3 and
no doubt, the train number is mentioned as in the inquest
as 16201 - Bengaluru to Hubli intercity express.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
12. The brother of the deceased statement was also
recorded as per Ex.A4 wherein he categorically says that
both of them went to railway station at 1.40 p.m. and
travelled in the train and rightly pointed out by the
respondent that nowhere in his statement, train number is
mentioned. So also Ex.A5 is the statement of keyman of
the railway department wherein he deposed that the
deceased fell down accidentally from the train No.16201
and also he categorically says that the brother of the
deceased only gave the name of the deceased as Raja and
both of them were travelling in the said train and the
deceased had accidentally fell down. Other statement
Ex.A6 is of the wife of the deceased and in her statement,
there is no material statement. However, taking into note
of Ex.A7 - PM report it is clear that death is due to multiple
injuries sustained.
13. It is important to note that when the keyman of
the railway department intimated the death immediately
and when the claimants as well as the brother of the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
deceased who was travelling in the train have categorically
stated that at 1.40 p.m., they left Bengaluru to go to
Shivamogga and keyman also given the details stating
that Francis only gave the details that both of them were
travelling in the train, merely because the train number is
mentioned as 16201, same is not at the statement of
brother of the deceased but the same is at the statement
of the keyman. In the case diary also nothing is placed on
record with regard to that who gave the details of train
number and if really train number is 16201, which would
have been forthcoming in the statement of the brother of
the deceased who was travelling along with the deceased.
It is also important to note that the said brother has not
been examined before the Tribunal but during the cross
examination, the statement of brother of the deceased
i.e., Ex.A4 was not disputed in the cross-examination AW1
and except relying upon DRM report, the respondent has
not placed any cogent evidence before the Tribunal with
regard to the fact that the train No.16201 was involved in
this accident. Hence, the very contention of the learned
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
counsel for the respondent that train No.16201 departures
from Bengaluru at 16.30 hours cannot be accepted unless
a rebuttal evidence is placed before the Court to show that
the deceased had travelled in that train and timing is
concerned, no cogent evidence is placed. When such
being the case, when FIR was registered based on the
information given by the keyman to the Station Master
immediately after the incident at 15.05 hours and thus,
there was no any delay in registering the case and
conducting the inquest. When such being the case, the
very contention of the learned counsel for the respondent
cannot be accepted and Tribunal also failed to consider the
document at Ex.A1 as well as statements at Ex.A4 and A5
wherein it is stated that the keyman gave the information
to the concerned immediately after the accident and his
statement is also very clear that the brother of the
deceased only gave the information. Hence, it is clear that
he was very much present at the time of the accident and
very contention that the brother of the deceased was not
travelled along with the deceased cannot be accepted and
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
after the investigation, police have filed the final report
and final report was not marked. However, the Tribunal
also while passing the order taken note of the reference of
final report and discussed at paragraph 11 of its order with
regard to PM report and also investigation that police have
filed the final report before the Executive Magistrate,
Nelamangala under Section 173 of Cr.P.C wherein also it
was concluded that the death was due to accidental fall
from moving train. Even though discussed the same but
not considered the same by the Tribunal while assigning
the reasons and final report also very clear that the
deceased fell down from the moving train, hence, an
untoward incident was taken place. Having taken all these
material available on record, it is very clear that Tribunal
has not considered the material available on record in a
proper perspective and committed an error in dismissing
the claim petition. Hence, I answer the above point as
affirmative.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment dated
20.12.2017 passed in OA II U 210/2013
by the Tribunal is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the claim application is
allowed.
(iii) The appellants are 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 appellants shall
be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
(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
