Karnataka High Court
Hanumanth Naik vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
M.F.A. No.6528/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6528/2016 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
HANUMANTH NAIK
S/O LATE SHAMIYA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O. BEERANAHALLI VILLAGE
MUTHAGATTI POST, KADUR TALUK
Digitally signed
by RAMYA D CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577548.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADV.,)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY
THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAIWLAY
HUBLI 580024.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGC)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT 1987, AGAINST THE FINDINGS DATED:
15.06.2016 PASSED ON OA II U 24/12 ON THE FILE OF THE
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, NOT
ALLOWING THE CLAIM APPLICATION AS PER FINDINGS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
M.F.A. No.6528/2016
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant/applicant has filed this appeal questioning
the order and award dated 15.06.2016 passed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in OA II U.24/2012, thereby
the claim petition filed by the applicant was dismissed on the
reason that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger at the
time of the incident and he has not sustained injuries in an
untoward incident but due to his own criminal act and injuries
sustained by him come under "self-inflicted injury".
2. It is the case of the applicant that on 22.07.2011,
the applicant who was a bonafide passenger, travelling in
Intercity Express from Tumkur to Kadur by holding a journey
ticket and was forced to stand near the footboard due to heavy
rush of the passengers inside the compartment and after
passing Arasikere Railway Station, due to sudden jerk and jolt
of the train, and the applicant lost balance and fell down from
the train, due to which he sustained injuries all over the body
and the right leg of the applicant was amputated below the
knee. Therefore, the applicant filed an application seeking
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the applicant was a bonafide passenger having a
ticket and fell down from the train due to a sudden jerk and
thus the act of the applicant is not a criminal act and the
injuries sustained are not self-inflicted injuries and thus, the
claim petition is maintainable.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-Union of India submitted that the applicant
has traveled in the train without a ticket and thus he is not a
bonafide passenger and travelling without ticket is prohibited
under Section 55 of the Railways Act 1989. Thus, injuries
sustained are self-inflicted injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal is
justified in dismissing the claim petition.
5. The applicant has produced documents at Exs.A1 to
A6, in support of his case. Ex.A1 is the copy of the
acknowledgment of Civil Misc.No.18/2011 dated 23.07.2011,
attested based on the complaint given by the applicant. Ex.A2
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
is the intimation given by the medical officer to Railway Police
Station. Ex.A3 is the statement given by the applicant to the
Police. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary Report issued by the
CSI Redfern Memorial Hospital.
6. The above said exhibits proves the fact that the
applicant while was travelling in Intercity Express train from
Tumkur to Kadur on 22.07.2011, fell down from the moving
train and sustained injuries. The medical record proves that the
applicant was injured with the history of railway accident. A
complaint has been lodged by the Police which proves the fact
that the applicant has suffered injuries in the railway accident.
7. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the
applicant was not a bonafide passenger and injuries sustained
is self-inflicted injuries and the injuries sustained is by the
virtue of his own criminal act.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India1. In paragraph No.13 the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
(2024) 9 SCC 656
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
"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
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
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."
9. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Mahaboob Sab & Another vs. Union of India 2. I n the said
judgment, this Court in paragraphs No.12 & 17 has held as
under:
"12. Per contra, Railways are claiming that it
is not an untoward incident, but it is self-inflicted
injury as contemplated under Section 124(a) Proviso
(b). In view of these rival contentions, it would be
necessary to examine the contentions raised by
claimants before Tribunal in claim petition and
evidence tendered by claimants, which is to the
following effect: That the petitioners No.1 and 2 are
the father and mother of the deceased Shahnawaz
hereinafter called the deceased. The deceased was
travelling Train No.1014 as a bona fide passenger.
The deceased fell of from the train at Yelahanka
Railway station, due to the huge jerk in the train.
2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5098
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
The deceased had suffered multiple injuries. The
deceased was taken to Victoria Hospital for
treatment and admitted as indoor patient. The duty
doctors attended the deceased and offered all
possible treatment to save the life of deceased. But
the deceased succumbed to the injuries on
06.09.2003.
17. The fact that Railways Act is a beneficial
piece of legislation cannot be lost sight of by this
Court and it should receive a liberal and wider
interpretation and purposeful construction of an
enactment is one, which gives effect of legislative
intent. Particularly when such beneficial legislation is
called in question, it should receive a liberal
interpretation and applying a strained interpretation
would defeat the legislative purpose for which
enactment is brought about."
10. In the case of Union of India vs. Rina Deva3, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"Re: (ii) Application of Principle of Strict
Liability - Concept of Self Inflicted Injury
16.1. From the judgments cited at the Bar we do not
see any conflict on the applicability of the principle of
strict liability. Sections 124 and Section 124A provide
AIR 2018 SC 2362
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
that compensation is payable whether or not there
has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of
the railway administration in the case of an accident
or in the case of an 'untoward incident'. Only
exceptions are those provided under proviso to
Section 124A. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (AIR
2009 SC (Supp) 383) (supra) it was held that
Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault
liability in case of railway accidents. Where principle
of strict liability applies, proof of negligence is not
required. This principle has been reiterated in
Jameela (AIR 2010 SC 3705) (supra).
16.2. Coming to the proviso to Section 124A to the
effect that no compensation is payable if passenger
dies or suffers injury due to the situations mentioned
therein, there is no difficulty as regards suicide or
attempted suicide in which case no compensation
may be payable. Conflict of opinions in High Courts
has arisen on understanding the expression 'self
inflicted injury' in the proviso. In some decisions it
has been held that injury or death because of
negligence of the victim was at par with self inflicted
injury. We may refer to the decisions of High Courts
of Kerala in Joseph PT (AIR 2014 SC Ker 12) (supra),
Bombay in Pushpa (supra) and Delhi in Shayam
Narayan (supra) on this point.
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
16.3. In Joseph PT (AIR 2014 Ker 12) (supra), the
victim received injuries in the course of entering a
train which started moving. Question was whether
his claim that he had suffered injuries in an
'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c)
could be upheld or whether he was covered by
proviso to Section 124A clause (b). The High Court
held that while in the case of suicide or attempt to
commit suicide, intentional act is essential. Since the
concept of 'self inflicted injury' is distinct from an
attempted suicide, such intention is not required and
even without such intention if a person acts
negligently, injuries suffered in such an accident will
amount to 'self inflicted injury'. Relevant
observations are:
"Therefore, the two limbs of the Proviso should be
construed to have two different objectives to be
achieved. We can understand the meaning of the
term "self-inflicted injury" not only from the sources
provided by the dictionaries, but also from the
context in which it is used in the statute. The term
"self-inflicted injury" used in the statute can be
deduced as one which a person suffers on account of
one's own action, which is something more than a
rash or negligent act. But it shall not be an
intentional act of attempted suicide. While there may
be cases where there is intention to inflict oneself
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
with injury amounting to self-inflicted injury, which
falls short of an attempt to commit suicide, there can
also be cases where, irrespective of intention, a
person may act with total recklessness, in that, he
may throw all norms of caution to the wind and
regardless to his age, circumstances, etc. act to his
detriment. Facts of this case show that the appellant
attempted to board a moving train from the off side
unmindful of his age and fully aware of the positional
disadvantageous and dangers of boarding a train
from a level lower than the footboard of the train. It
is common knowledge that the footboard and
handrails at the doors of the compartment are
designed to suit the convenience of the passengers
for boarding from and alighting to the platform. And
at the same time, when a person is trying to board
the train from the non-platform side, he will be
standing on the heap of rubbles kept beneath the
track and that too in a lower level. Further more, he
will have to stretch himself to catch the handrails and
struggle to climb up through the footboard hanging
beneath the bogie. The probability of danger is
increased in arithmetic progression when the train is
moving. Visualising all these things in mind, it can
only be held that the act of the appellant was the
height of carelessness, imprudence and
foolhardiness. It is indisputable that the purpose of
Section 124A of the Act is to provide a speedy
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
remedy to an injured passenger or to the dependants
of a deceased passenger involved in an untoward
incident. Section 124A of the Act provides for
compensation to a passenger or his dependants who
suffers injury or death, as the case may be, in an
untoward incident even where the untoward incident
is not the consequence of any wrongful act, neglect
or default on the part of Railway Administration. to
this extent, it can be said to be a no-fault liability.
Even though the provisions relating to payment of
compensation in the Act can be said to be a piece a
beneficial legislation, it cannot be stretched too much
to reward a person who acts callously, unwisely or
imprudently. There is no provision of law brought to
our notice permitting the passengers to entrain from
the non-platform side of the railway track. However,
the counsel for the respondent did not show any
provision of law prohibiting the same. The question
whether an act by which a passenger sustains injury
while boarding a train through the off side, is a
selfinflicted injury or not depends on the facts of
each case. Merely because a person suffered injury
in the process of getting into the train through the
off side, it may not be sufficient to term it as a
selfinflicted injury, unless the facts and
circumstances show that his act was totally
imprudent, irrational, callous and unmindful of the
consequences. All the facts and circumstances
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
established in this case would show that the act of
the appellant was with full knowledge of the
imminent possibility of dangering his life or limb and
therefore, it squarely comes within the term "self-
inflicted injury" defined in Section 124A Proviso (b)
of the Act."
16.4. In Pushpa (supra) a hawker died in the course
of boarding a train. It was held that he was not
entitled to compensation as it was a case of 'self
inflicted injury'. The relevant observations are:
"Such an attempt by a hawker has been viewed by
the trial Court as something amounting to criminal
negligence on his part and also an effort to inflict
injuries to himself. The trial Court reasoned that if
the deceased had to sell his goods by boarding a
train, he should have ensured to do so only when it
was quite safe for him to get on to the train or
otherwise he could have avoided catching the train
and waited for another train to come. It also hinted
that there was absolutely no compulsion or hurry for
the deceased in the present case to make an attempt
to somehow or the other board the train while it was
gathering speed."
16.5. In Shyam Narayan (2017 AAC 1833
(Del.)(supra), same view was taken which is as
follows:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
"6(ii) I cannot agree with the arguments urged on
behalf of the appellants/applicants in the facts of the
present case because there is a difference between
an untoward incident and an act of criminal
negligence. Whereas negligence will not disentitle
grant of compensation under the Railways Act,
however, once the negligence becomes a criminal
negligence and self-inflicted injury then
compensation cannot be granted. This is specifically
provided in the first proviso to Section 124-A of the
Railways Act which provides that compensation will
not be payable in case the death takes place on
account of suicide or attempted suicide, self inflicted
injury, bona fide passenger's own criminal act or an
act committed by the deceased in the state of
intoxication or insanity."
16.6. We are unable to uphold the above view as the
concept of 'self inflicted injury' would require
intention to inflict such injury and not mere
negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would
amount to invoking the principle of contributory
negligence which cannot be done in the case of
liability based on 'no fault theory'. We may in this
connection refer to judgment of this Court in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar 2017 (13)
SCALE 652 : (AIR 2017 SC 5710) laying down that
plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
claim based on 'no fault theory' under Section 163A
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold
that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-
boarding a train will be an 'untoward incident'
entitling a victim to the compensation and will not
fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the
plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing
factor."
11. Therefore, it is clear that the applicant has traveled
in the train and sustained injuries in the railway accident.
Therefore, it is held that the applicant is deemed to have in
possession of the ticket and traveled in the train and thus he is
a bonafide passenger and could not have committed any
criminal act and sustained injuries by falling from the train.
Thus, it is not a self-inflicted injury. Therefore, in this regard,
the Tribunal is not correct in dismissing the claim. Therefore,
having proved the aforesaid facts, the applicant is entitled to
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the train
accident.
12. From the medical records and also from the Police
records, it is proved that the applicant has suffered amputation
of right leg below knee. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10269
the compensation as per the Schedule III of Railway Accidents
(Compensation) Rules, 1990 of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @
6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation.
13. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) Compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded to
the applicant with interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of claim petition till realisation.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
GVP
