Karnataka High Court
Smt Renukamma vs Union Of India on 20 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:12720
MFA No. 893 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 893 OF 2019 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RENUKAMMA
W/O MANJAPPA
AGE 30 YEARS,
2. SRI. MANJAPPA
S/O. SIDDAPPA
AGE 38 YEARS
3. MASTER. ANNAPPA
S/O MANJAPPA
AGE 16 YEARS
4. MASTER. AJJAPPA
S/O MANJAPPA
AGE 13 YEARS
(SINCE APPELLANT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS AND
HENCE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1)
Digitally ALL ARE R/O GUDALU VILLAGE,
signed by BS DAVANGERE TALUK,
RAVIKUMAR
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA G CONTRACTOR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. JAGADEESHGOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBLI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ADITYA SINGH, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:12720
MFA No. 893 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF RAILWAY
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 28.02.2018 PASSED IN OA II U 087/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF RCT ACT, 1987.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimants in O.A. II U 087/2014 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) have filed this appeal challenging an order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Tribunal rejecting their claim petition.
2. The claimants are the dependent legal heirs of Maruthi. They claimed that on 26.05.2013, the deceased Maruthi boarded the Janshatabdi Express train at Chikkajajuru railway station and when he was about to alight in front of Geethanjali theatre, Davanagere, he fell down from the train, suffered amputation of the left hand and right leg and died at the spot. Soon after the claimants were informed, they rushed to the spot and identified the body. They claimed that the police conducted a inquest which disclosed that the deceased fell from the moving train and went under its wheels and -3- NC: 2024:KHC:12720 MFA No. 893 of 2019 suffered injuries and died at the spot. It also disclosed that the deceased was not having any money in his pocket or any valuables. They claimed that a keyman working near by, informed the railway station about the death, consequent to which, the Division Railway Manager, visited the spot, made observations and held that the deceased was travelling on the footboard of the train, fell down from the train and suffered injuries. With these and other contentions they claimed that the deceased died due to an untoward incident while travelling in the train and therefore they were entitled to compensation for the untoward incident, resulting in the death of Maruthi.
3. The claim petition was opposed by the respondent who contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger travelling in the train holding a valid ticket. They claimed that the claimants did not produce the journey ticket and the same was not even recovered from the deceased at the time of inquest. They also contended that there was no material to establish that the deceased had travelled in Janshatabdi express and that his death was due to a fall from the train. Based on these contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:12720 MFA No. 893 of 2019
4. The father of the deceased was examined as AW.1 and he marked Exs.A1 to A11. The respondent did not lead any evidence and placed on record the report of the Divisional Railway Manager dated 03.05.2016 and the Divisional Security Commissioner's report dated 26.07.2016 along with the report of the Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, Davanagere. Based on these contentions, the tribunal rejected the claim of the claimants on the ground that the claimants did not produce the journey ticket to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who travelled in the Janshatabdi express. It also held that there was no other item found on the person of the deceased at the place of the incident, which was evident from inquest mahazar. It also held that the deceased was not dragged by the train, as he suffered injuries only to the left hand and right leg. It also held that the deceased could not have boarded the train at Chikkajajur station, as Janashatabdi express did not stop at the said station. It also held that AW.1 did not have personal knowledge about occurrence of the accident, as he did not accompany the deceased at the time of travel. It held that since the deceased was not a bonafide -5- NC: 2024:KHC:12720 MFA No. 893 of 2019 passenger, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have filed this petition.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that as per the report of the Divisional Railway Manager, the deceased was travelling on the footboard of the train. He therefore, contends that the fact that the deceased was travelling in the train was proved beyond doubt. He further contends that the death was reported by a keyman at 1:15 p.m. and therefore, it was improbable that the locomotive driver could not have noticed any movement on the track, if the deceased had attempted to commit suicide by coming under the wheels of the train. He contended that the deceased was a resident of Davanagere and he had gone to Chikkajajur for some official work and was returning to Davangere in Janshatabdi express after buying a ticket. He contended that mere non-production of journey ticket is not sufficient to construe that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, more particularly, when inquest mahazar disclosed that the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:12720 MFA No. 893 of 2019 deceased was not carrying any money or other valuables. With these and other contentions, the learned counsel contended that since the death of the deceased on the track of train is proved beyond doubt and the Divisional Railway Manager report also indicated that the deceased was travelling in the train, it has to be irresistibly held that the deceased died due to an untoward incident while travelling in the train and therefore, the claimants are entitled to be compensated.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that there was nothing on record to establish that the deceased was travelling in the train as a bonafide passenger. He contended that only a bonafide passenger who suffered injuries or who dies due to an untoward incident, would entitle him or his legal representative to claim compensation, in view of Section 124A of Railway Act, 1989. He submitted that in the absence of any evidence to establish that the deceased was travelling in the train as a bonafide passenger, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. He contended that even as per the report of the Divisional Railway Manager, the deceased was travelling on the footboard of the train which itself was an offence punishable -7- NC: 2024:KHC:12720 MFA No. 893 of 2019 under Section 156 of the Railways Act and therefore, the claimants would not be entitled to any compensation, in view of Section 124A of the Railways Act. The Janashatabdi express did not stop at the Chikkajajuru village and therefore, the deceased could not have boarded the train at Chikkajaru village to go to Davangere. With these contentions, he contended that the claim of the claimants that the deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling in train is doubtful and therefore, the order passed by the tribunal is just and proper.
8. The fact that the deceased was found on the railway track by keyman of the respondent at 1:15 p.m. is not in dispute. It is well nigh impossible for any person not to notice a person trying to come under the wheels of the train that too in noon hours. The fact that the Divisional Railway Manager had submitted a report which indicated that the deceased was travelling on the footboard of the train, established beyond doubt that the deceased did not attempt to commit suicide, but he suffered injuries due to an accidental fall while travelling in the said train. The question whether the deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger or not, is a pure question of fact and the same had to be gathered from circumstances. The -8- NC: 2024:KHC:12720 MFA No. 893 of 2019 fact that the inquest did not yield any valuables from body of the deceased goes to show that the deceased must have been searched or robbed by someone after the accident and all his valuables must have been taken away. It is not uncommon that dead man on a railway track is foraged to take away anything valuable. In the said process, it is quite possible that the journey ticket was either taken away or lost. Since the respondent did not enter the witness box, the claim of the respondent that there was no stop at Chikkajajuru village and therefore, the deceased could not have boarded the train at Chikkajajuru village cannot be accepted to countenance the claim of the claimants, as the claimants have established that the deceased had travelled in the train and that he died while trying to alight from the train. The claimants are therefore entitled to be compensated, as the death was due to an "untoward incident".
9. The reasoning adopted by the tribunal therefore, warrants interference as the same is based on conjectures and surmises, rather than taking into account, the real life experiences of men travelling by a train in this country. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:12720 MFA No. 893 of 2019
10. In that view of the matter the order passed by the tribunal warrants interference and claimants are entitled for compensation.
11. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the tribunal in Claim Application No.OA II U 087/2014 is set aside. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation. However, if the compensation and interest does not exceed a sum of Rs,8,00,000/- the claimants should be entitled to a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation, but if it exceeds a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, they shall be entitled to actual compensation as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi - (2019) 3 SCC 572. Upon deposit, 25% of the compensation and accrued interest shall be deposited in each of the names of claimants and remaining shall be released to the claimants in equal proportions.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ