Karnataka High Court
Mr. S.K. Devanna vs The Union Of India on 2 May, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
MFA No. 8313 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8313 OF 2015 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. S.K. DEVANNA
S/O. NARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
2. MRS. BETTAMMA
W/O. S.K. DEVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
BOTH RESIDENTS OF
HOTHIGAL GUDDA,
ATHNOOR VILLAGE AND POST,
MANVI TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 584 136.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. TANVEER PASHA A.S., ADVOCATE)
PAVITHRA B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPT BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBLI - 580 020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.SHNATHI BHUSHAN, DSGI)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2014
PASSED ON OA II U 100/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
MFA No. 8313 of 2015
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING THE
APPLIATION FILED U/S 16 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The claimants being aggrieved by the judgment
dated 24.09.2014 passed in claim application No.O.A II U
100/2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore
Bench, Bangalore, thereby the claim petition filed by the
claimants was rejected.
2. The claimants being parents of the deceased
have stated in the claim application that on 31.03.2012 in
the night, the deceased by name S.N.Nanda Kumar along
with his cousin brother by name Amaresh had been to
Raichur Railway Station and purchased one combined
journey ticket for both of them from Raichur to
Yeswanthapur and after sometime boarded into Train
No.17308 Bagalkot/Yesvanthapur express into a general
compartment. When the said train after crossing
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
Dharmavaram Station, the deceased had been to the
toilets and while he was washing his hands at the wash
basin due to the speed and jerks of the train, he had
accidentally slipped and fallen down from the train
between Dharmavaram/Nagasamudram Railway Stations
on 31.03.2012 in the early hours and by sustaining fatal
injuries, he died on the spot.
3. The claim petition filed by the claimants was
dismissed on the reason that the age of the deceased at
the time of the accident is established as 8 years, but
whereas on the record, the age of the deceased is 8 to 20
years in different papers. Therefore, the Tribunal had
doubted that the very same person died in the accident.
Further assigned the reason that there is discrepancy in
mentioning as to when the accident occurred whether it is
day time or night time and for these reasons, the claim
petition is dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
4. The documentary evidence such as complaint,
FIR, post mortem report, inquest panchanama and
statement of witnesses have the proved fact that the
deceased was 8 years old who died in the accident. There
may be some discrepancies in mentioning the age of the
deceased as 8 to 20 years, but this discrepancy shall not
be exaggerated so as to reject the claim petition.
5. 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
(2024) 9 SCC 656
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
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."
6. The judgment of this Court in the case of
MAHABOOB SAB & ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA2
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. 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."
2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5098
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
7. 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 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.
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:
AIR 2018 SC 2362
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
"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 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 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
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
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 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:
"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.
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
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
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."
8. From the evidence on record and also the
Tribunal ultimately finding that the deceased was the child
of 8 years old as on the date of the accident. The DRM
report proves the fact that the deceased -
S.N.Nandakumar died in the accident.
9. When all these being the evidence on record, in
all its preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that the
deceased being 8 years old died in the accident. The
reason assigned by the Tribunal is so trivial, which
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
absolutely could not be accepted. The claim petition is
dismissed with all its possible hyper technical reasons
which are not sustainable in the eye of law. When all the
evidence on record placed before the trial Court
conclusively prove the fact that the deceased died in the
accident, but only on the hyper technical reason
dismissing of the claim petition is absolutely not correct.
Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
10. The deceased died in the accident on
31.03.2012. Therefore, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is
awarded along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others4,
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
(2023) 6 SCR 329
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
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/-, 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."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case
the accident was 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
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment dated 24.09.2014
passed in claim application No.O.A II U
100/2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, is set aside.
(iii) The claimants being father and mother of the
deceased are entitled to compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate
of 8% p.a., from the date of petition 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 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
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18073
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/-.
(v) No order as to costs.
(vi) Draw decree accordingly.
(vii) The entire award amount shall be released in
favour of the claimants.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
PB
