Karnataka High Court
Bhimsa And Ors vs The Union Of India on 22 June, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5005
MFA No. 201299 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201299 OF 2019 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. BHIMSA S/O HASHEPPA HOSAMANI
AGED ABOUT: 64 YEARS
2. VIJJAMMA @ IJJAMMA
W/O BHIMSA HOSAMANI
AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS
3. JAIRAJ S/O BHIMSHA HOSAMANI
AGED ABOUT: 19 YEARS
4. SUDHARANI D/O BHIMSHA HOASMANI
AGE ABOUT: 18 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O GOUDANAHALLI VILLAGE
INAPURA HOBLI, CHINCHOLI TALUKA
Digitally signed
by SHILPA R KALABURAGI DISTRICT
TENIHALLI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
CENTRAL RAILWAY
MUMBAI-400008
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5005
MFA No. 201299 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE RAILWAY
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 02.08.2018 PASSED BY THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, IN OA II U 148/2015 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/-,
WITH 12% INTEREST, ORDER FOR COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimants are in appeal challenging the correctness of the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in case No.OA II U 148 of 2015.
2. The claim petition discloses that the claimants are the dependents/legal heirs of Rajkumar Hosmani, who died in a Railway station on 18.09.2013 while he was crossing the railway track near Kurla railway station. A complaint in that regard was lodged in ADR No.310/2013. The claimants claimed that the deceased was a male nurse in a private hospital in Mumbai and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and due to his untimely -3- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5005 MFA No. 201299 of 2019 death, the claimants were deprived of his emotional and financial support. Consequently, they filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
3. The claim petition was resisted by the Indian Railways. It contended that the death of Rajkumar Hosmani was not an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1989') and therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation, as it was protected under Section 124 of the Act, 1989. It also relied upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.1466/2009, wherein similar circumstances, this Court had held that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation, as the incident occurred on account of criminal negligence of the deceased. Based on these rival contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial.
4. The claimants were examined and they produced and marked documents in support of their claim. The Railways did not lead any evidence. -4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5005 MFA No. 201299 of 2019
5. Based on oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that as per the inspection report of the DRM, the deceased had unauthorizedly entered the railway premises and while crossing the track, was hit by an unknown train and that the death was due to his negligence. The Tribunal relied upon Section 124-A of the Act, 1989 and held that it was a self-inflicted injury and that the deceased had committed offences under Sections 137 and 147 of the Act, 1989 and therefore, no compensation was payable for a criminal act committed by the deceased. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the claimants are before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the death of the deceased in a railway station is not in dispute. He contended that the incident did not fall within the definition of Section 123(c) (2) of the Act, 1989. He relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar and -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5005 MFA No. 201299 of 2019 Others1, Jameela and others Vs. Union of India2 and Union of India Vs. Mangalabai and others3 and unreported judgments of this Court in the cases of Mallappa and another Vs. Union of India4 and Smt. Surekha and Others Vs. Union of India5. He therefore, prays that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal be set aside and appropriate compensation be awarded.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Indian Railways submits that the deceased was unauthorizedly crossing the Railway line and was accidentally hit by a moving train and therefore, it is the negligence of the deceased, which resulted in his death and no compensation is entitled in view of proviso of Section 124- A of the Act, 1989.
1 2008 (9) SCC 527 2 (2010) SCC 800 (SC) 3 2015 (1) ACC 31 4 MFA No.30503/2008 5 MFA No.30342/2010 dated 22.02.2016 -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5005 MFA No. 201299 of 2019
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants as well as the learned counsel for the Indian Railways.
9. An 'untoward incident' is defined in Section 123
(c) of the Act, 1989 as under:
"Section 123(c) in The Railways Act, 1989 [(c) "untoward incident" means--
(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.]"-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5005 MFA No. 201299 of 2019
10. Therefore, the death of the deceased cannot be construed as an 'untoward incident'. Under Section 124-A of the Act, 1989, the Indian Railways is exempt from paying any compensation if the person dies due to suicide or attempted suicide or self-inflicted injury or by his own criminal act. However, there is no material to indicate that the deceased attempted to commit suicide or it was self-inflicted injury. It may be a genuine case of the deceased trying to cross the railway track and in the process, he could have been dashed against by a moving train. Therefore, it was for the railways administration to ensure that the railway track is cordoned off to ensure that there was no movement of human beings across the track. If the railways administration had taken the risk in allowing access to the railway track, it is bound to compensate for the accidental death caused due to the moving train. In that view of the matter, the railways administrative cannot avoid liability on the ground that the deceased attempted to commit suicide or it was a self- inflicted injury or that it was his own criminal act. -8-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5005 MFA No. 201299 of 2019 Having regard to the fact that under Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the compensation is fixed at a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The Railways Administration/respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, excluding the interest for the delayed period of 245 days.
The respondent shall deposit the compensation along with interest before the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Upon deposit, 30% of the compensation and interest shall be deposited in the names of claimant Nos.3 and 4 -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5005 MFA No. 201299 of 2019 each in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19