Karnataka High Court
Mrs Sarojabai vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.8015 OF 2016 (RCT)
BETWEEN :
1. MRS.SAROJABAI @
VADITYA SAROJABAI,
W/O LATE SRI CHANDRA NAYAK @
HARISHCHANDRA,
AGED 43 YEARS.
2. MS. SHUSHEELA BAI,
D/O LATE SRI CHANDRA NAYAK @
HARISHCHANDRA,
AGED 18 YEARS.
R/AT R.B.VANKA, BLOCK I,
BANDANAKALLUL VILLAGE,
RAYADURGA (MANDAL),
ANANTHPUR - 515 865.
A.P. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.J.SANGHVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS,
HUBLI - 580 028. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASG)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987.
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri. S.J. Sanghvi, learned counsel for appellants and Sri. Shanthi Bhushan, ASG for respondent has appeared in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal.
3. An application came to be filed under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondent Railways for payment of compensation Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) along with 12% p.a. interest from the date of application till the disposal of the application on account of death of one Rama Nayak in an untoward incident. 3
It is stated that on 26.08.2011, the deceased was travelling from Bangalore to Rayadurga by train by purchasing a ticket bearing No.94717437 for Rs.50/- by unknown train and he accidentally fell down in between Gubbi and Nittur Railway Station and subsequently he succumbed to injuries on the spot. Contending that it is an untoward incident, the applicants claimed compensation.
After issuance of notice, the Railway-authority filed reply statement disputing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. They stated that the claim made out by the applicants does not come within the ambit of Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
They contended that it is not untoward incident and it is a case of self-inflicted injury. It was also contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as he was not travelling with journey ticket. 4
They specifically contended that there is no evidence or document to establish that the deceased was travelling in the train. Among other grounds they prayed for the dismissal of the claim.
On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues. The first applicant examined as AW-1 and got marked documents A-1 to A-13. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence. They filed DRM'S report which is marked as Ex-R1.
On summary of action, the Tribunal vide order dated 02.09.2016 rejected the claim. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is not proper either in law or on facts and evidence in the case.
Next, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not believing the evidence of AW-1. It is submitted that it was 5 specifically mentioned in the inquest report that the deceased had fallen down from the train and succumbed to injuries.
A further submission is made that the without appreciating the factual aspects has dismissed the claim application.
Learned counsel vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in relying on the DRM report and the conclusion of the DRM which was to the effect that the deceased was travelling on foot board and which is an illegal act hence is not entitled for compensation.
Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and accordingly he submitted that the appeal may be allowed.
5. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of parties and perused the records with care. 6
6. Now the question for determination in the instant appeal is as to whether the death of the deceased in the aforesaid manner is covered by Section 124-A of the Railways Act or not?
Suffice it to note that Sections 123 to 129 contained in Chapter XIII of the Railways Act deal with the liability of Railway Administration for Death and Injury to Passengers due to railway accidents.
Now it has to be examined as to whether the claim of the appellants in the instant case is covered under Section 124-A of the Railways Act or not.
I may with advantage refer to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, which reads as under:-
"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.- When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or 7 the dependant of a passenger who was killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident;
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this Section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to -
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident."
This Section was introduced by the Parliament by Railways (Amendment) Act (28 of 1994). This Section 8 provides for awarding compensation to 'victims of untoward incident' which occurs in the course of working of a railway.
Reverting to the facts of the case, I have verified the records with care. The police inquest report depicts that the body was rolling and cut into many pieces. The left leg was cut upto knee and separated from the body. The post mortem report also reveals that Head decapitated at the level of lower half of neck, with head crushed and lacerated exposing fractured bones, lacerated membrane and brains partially drained out.
Suffice it to note that the investigation records produced by the applicants would show that the body of the deceased was cut into pieces and was lying on the Railway Track.
The Tribunal in extenso referred to the material on record and held that it is not a case of untoward incident involving a passenger train and rejected the claim. In my 9 view, the order of the Tribunal is justified. The appeal is devoid of merits. I refuse to invite interference with the order of the Tribunal.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN