Karnataka High Court
Sri Guruswamappa @ Guruswamy vs The Union Of India on 1 April, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13669
MFA No. 4505 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. 4505 OF 2017 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI GURUSWAMAPPA @ GURUSWAMY
S/O MADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. SMT GURUMALLAMMA @ PARVATHAMMA
W/O GURUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT BERATAHALLI POST,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RANJITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
RAMYA D THE UNION OF INDIA
Location: SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAYS
HIGH BANGALORE - 560002
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS
KARNATAKA
GENERAL MANAGER
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 09.02.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION AND COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13669
MFA No. 4505 of 2017
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 order dated 09.02.2017 passed in
O.A.II U 019/2010 by the Member (Judicial), Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short 'the Tribunal')
wherein the claim petition is dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
3. The appellants/claimants are the Father and Mother
of the deceased Ramesh, who succumbed to the injuries in
the Train accident. It is the case of the claimants that on
23.02.2009 the deceased was traveling from Bangalore to
Chamarajanagar in a train and fell down from the moving
train, sustained fatal injuries to the head and succumbed
to the injuries and his body was found on the railway
track. The claim petition was dismissed for the reason
NC: 2025:KHC:13669
that on the dead body of the deceased journey ticket was
not found and also claimants have not produced the
tickets. Therefore, for this reason it was held that
deceased was not a bonafide passenger and dismissed the
claim petition.
4. In the claim petition before the Tribunal, the
claimants/appellants have filed I.A.No.230/2010 praying
for amendment to delete paragraph No.7 in the application
that 'II Class Ticket originally seized by Police' and to
replace it with 'Original ticket lost, at the time of the
accident'. But this interim application was rejected by the
Tribunal. The 1st claimant/AW.1, who is the father of the
deceased has stated that police have handed over only
luggage and have not handed over the lost ticket. AW.1
had not accompanied his son/the deceased and therefore,
he has no personal knowledge about how the incident had
happened. The Tribunal has only much harped upon on
the journey ticket, but has not discussed the other
evidence on record. The DRM's report proves the fact that
NC: 2025:KHC:13669
the deceased died in the train accident; though the DRM's
report indicates that no ticket was found on the dead body
of the deceased and no persons have seen him falling from
the train and therefore, it is only opinion of DRM that
railway authority is in no way responsible for the death of
the deceased. But the DRM's report proves the fact that
Ramesh died in the railway accident. Non finding of
tickets from the dead body of deceased, is not the reason
to reject the claim petition. Therefore, the railway
authority is liable to pay the compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed
objections for grant of compensation to the claimants
stating that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
6. Therefore, on considering the aforesaid legal
position, in a train accident if a person dies and dead body
is taken to the mortuary for conducting post mortem
examination, then there is every chance that the ticket
might have been lost. Therefore, just because ticket is not
produced, cannot be taken as a ground to reject the claim
NC: 2025:KHC:13669
petition. When the DRM report states that death of the
deceased is due to the train accident, then the claimants
would be 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
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."
(2024) 9 SCC 656
NC: 2025:KHC:13669
8. The accident occurred on 23.02.2009. Therefore, as
per Schedule II of the Railway Accidents and Untoward
Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the claimants are
entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of realization and if the said
lumpsum amount is lesser than Rs.8,00,000/- then the
claimants are entitled to a maximum of Rs.8,00,000/- in
lumpsum.
9. 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
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/-,
(2023) 6 SCR 329
NC: 2025:KHC:13669
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."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases where
the accident has occurred in the year 2003, compensation
of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded 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 claimants
would be 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/-.
11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:13669
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment and award dated 09.02.2017
passed in O.A.II U 019/2010 by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, 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
NC: 2025:KHC:13669
appellants/claimants 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
