Karnataka High Court
Fhajalanabi vs The Union Of India on 1 April, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13675
MFA No. 5603 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5603 OF 2017 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. FHAJALANABI
W/O AMINASAB MULLA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. BHISMILLA
D/O AMINASAB MULLA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
3. HUSEN
S/O AMINASAB MULLA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
4. HEENA
D/O AMINASAB MULLA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
Digitally 5. LALASAB
signed by S/O AMINASAB MULLA,
RAMYA D
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF ALL ARE R/AT NO.120,
KARNATAKA
BIJAPUR WARD NO.16,
YOGAPUR COLONY AND
ENVIRONMENT HOUSES
NO.1 TO 1070, OTHER HOUSES,
VIJAYAPUR-586101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A. MANJULA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13675
MFA No. 5603 of 2017
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBLI
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHANTHIBHUSHAN, DSGI)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
13.04.2017, PASSED IN OA II U138/2015, ON THE FILE OF
THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
DISMISSING THE APPLICATION AS PER FINDINGS AND
SPEAKING ORDER IN THE FOREGOING PARAS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants
assailing the impugned judgment dated 13.04.2017
passed in O.A.II U 138/2015 by the Judicial Member,
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, (for
short 'the Tribunal') wherein the claim petition is
dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:13675
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well
as the learned counsel for respondent. Perused the
records.
3. The claimants are the wife and children of the
deceased AminasabMulla. It is the case of the claimants
that on 06.04.2015, AminasabMulla purchased ticket at
Vijayapur Railway Station to travel from Vijayapur to
Limbala, accidentally he fell down from the moving train
and sustained fatal/grievous injuries and died on the spot.
Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition, but the
same is dismissed on the ground that no intimation was
given to the Railway Police Station about the death of the
deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that
reasons given by the Tribunal for dismissing the claim
petition is not correct. Therefore, prays to allow the
appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:13675
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/Union of India justifies the impugned order
and prays to dismiss the appeal.
6. Exhibit A1 is the copy of the message from
DY.SS/MNL to SI/GRP/BJP dated 6.04.2015 which reads
that loco pilot of the train sent message through Walkie
Talkie that a male dead body is lying/found on the track
between Bijapur and Minchinahal. Ex.A2 is the copy of the
FIR registered under UDR No.11/2015 by PSI/Railway
Police Station/Bijapur. Ex.A.3 is the Post Mortem Report
wherein the concerned Doctor has stated that 'cause of
death is due to hemorrhagic shock as a result off multiple
injuries to vital organs and auto amputation'. Ex.A4 is the
Inquest Report which reads opinion of the panchas as
'Deceased fell down from moving train, got his hands and
legs cut, suffered grievous injuries to his head and
accidentally got run over and died on the spot'. These
documentary evidence coupled with the evidence of the
claimants prove the fact that the deceased died in the
NC: 2025:KHC:13675
railway accident. Just because journey ticket was not
found on the dead body of the deceased is not a ground to
say that the death is not because of railway accident.
When the death occurred and immediately the body was
shifted to the hospital to conduct the post mortem, during
the said time the ticket might have been lost. Therefore,
the Tribunal is not correct in dismissing the claim petition
on the reason the railway ticket was not found on the dead
body. Quite naturally the claimants have not accompanied
the deceased. Therefore, they could not produce the
journey ticket. Further it is proved that dead body was
found in the railway accident as discussed above.
Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DOLI RANI
SAHA VS. UNION OF INDIA1 in paragraph No.13 has
held as under:
"13. From the recapitulation of the various judicial
pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen
that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling
on the train in question. In Rina Deva (supra), a two-Judge
(2024) 9 SCC 656
NC: 2025:KHC:13675
Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on
which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the
deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the
initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be
discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the
claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways.
Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket
would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court is
reproduced below:
"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body
on the railway premises will not be conclusive to
hold that the injured or deceased was a bona fide
passenger for which claim for compensation could
be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket
with such injured or deceased will not
negative the claim that he was a bona fide
passenger. Initial burden will be on the
claimant which can be discharged by filing an
affidavit of the 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. The legal
position in this regard will stand explained
accordingly."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others2,
wherein at paragraph No.23 it is held as under:
"23. Accordingly and as per above
discussion we allow this appeal and set
aside the impugned judgment dated
26.03.2021 passed by the High Court and
also the Claims Tribunal dated 29.06.2017.
Consequently, claim application is allowed.
The appellants are held entitled for
(2023) 6 SCR 329
NC: 2025:KHC:13675
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
realisation. It is made clear that after
applying the rate of interest, if the final
figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then
appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-
. The amount of compensation be satisfied
by the respondents within a period of eight
weeks. No order as to costs."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case the
accident occurred in the year 2003 and awarded
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest from
the date of petition till the date of realization and also it is
made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the
final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the claimant is
entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the present case
also, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the
rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of
realization is awarded to the claimants and if this figure
comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the
appellants/claimants are entitled to a maximum
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:13675
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment and award dated 13.04.2017
passed in O.A.II U 138/2015 by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru,
is set aside.
iii. The appellants/claimants are entitled to
statutory compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along
with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the
date of accident till the date of realization.
iv. It is also made clear that after applying the
rate of interest, if the final figure is less than
Rs.8,00,000/-, then the claimants are entitled
to Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the present
case also, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with
interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of
petition till the date of realization is awarded to
the claimants and if this figure comes less than
Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants/claimants
NC: 2025:KHC:13675
are entitled to a maximum compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/-.
v. No order as to costs.
vi. Draw award accordingly.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
NG
CT:SG
