Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Smt. Eramma on 20 February, 2017
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6643/2015 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBLI-580020.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ERAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE CHANDRAPPA,
50 YEARS,
2. SRI. RAMESH,
SON OF LATE CHANDRAPPA,
39 YEARS,
3. SRI KARISIDAPPA,
SON OF LATE CHANDRAPPA,
36 YEARS,
4. SMT. RADHAMMA,
DAUGHTER OF LATE CHANDRAPPA,
34 YEARS,
5. SRI PRAKASH,
SON OF LATE CHANDRAPPA,
31 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GOLLARAHATTI,
GUNDIMADU VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577562. ... RESPONDENTS
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL 1987, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT DATED: 04.06.2015 PASSED IN OA II U
40/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU BENCH, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.4,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
FILING ORIGINAL APPLICATION TO TILL THIS DATE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Western Railway, against the order dated 04.06.2015 made in OA II U 40/2011 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, awarding compensation of `4 lakhs in favour of the respondents who are the widow, sons and daughter of deceased Chandrappa.
2. The respondents herein filed application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, 1987 r/w Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming 3 compensation of `4 lakhs on account of the death of Chandrappa, husband of 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 5 contending that on 11.11.2010, the Station Master received information from one Mariyappa Thimmappa, keyman, gangman/gang No.11/ Holalkere, that in railway KM No.270/500-600 between Holalkere- Chikkajajur railway stations, dead body of one unknown person aged about 60 years is found. As per the report, a case was registered in UDR No.65/2010 as per Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and FIR was sent to Taluk Executive Magistrate, Holalkere and also copies were sent to higher officials. As per the Order, the ASI, Chikkajajur conducted the investigation and visited the spot, the dead body was found in between Holalkere-Chikkajajur railway stations in railway KM No.270/5-6. The dead body was not in an identifiable condition because of the crush injuries on the head and face and the left leg. On examination of the dead body, one railway ticket No.33147 dated 4 11.11.2010 was found, it was from Nulenur to Sasalu. The deceased had gone to Nulenur to meet his friend at Nulenur and his friend one Shekharappa, S/o Hanumanthappa had purchased ticket and sent the deceased back to his village on 11.11.2010 and the deceased, while traveling in the train, accidentally fell down from the train and succumbed to the injuries. The applicants mentioned the class of travel and the ticket number to the extent known as 'general class 33147'.
3. The South Western Railway, appellant herein respondent before the Tribunal filed reply stating that the accident is not an 'untoward incident' and as evident by the injuries stated in the post mortem report, deceased had committed suicide and police have planted the ticket and created a story and false statement concluding the case as accidental death was 5 created, etc. and therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Based on the pleadings, the Railway Claims Tribunal, framed the following issues:
(1) Whether was there any untoward incident? (2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger?
(3) Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased?
(4) Whether the applicants are entitled for any relief and interest as prayed in the application?
5. In order to substantiate her case, the first applicant/widow of the deceased got examined herself as AW-1 and marked documents as Exs.A-1 to A-12. The railway department examined one Mariyappa Thimmappa, retired key man, Holalkere Railway Station as RW-1.
6
6. After hearing both the parties, the Claims Tribunal recorded a specific finding that there was 'untoward incident' and the deceased was a bonafide passenger. The applicants were dependents on the deceased and are entitled to compensation of `4 lakhs and accordingly, by the impugned award dated 04.06.2015 awarded compensation of `4 lakhs with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of the award and thereafter interest at 9% per annum till the date of realization. Hence the present appeal is filed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Sri N.S.Sanjay Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant/railways vehemently contended that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation of `4 lakhs with interest is erroneous and contrary to law. He contended that body of the deceased was admittedly found at an unmanned level 7 crossing and the head and the arm were separated from the body and therefore, it gives an inference that the death could not have occurred due to a fall from a train. Having regard to the injuries and the spot at which the body was found, the finding of the Tribunal that it was a case of fall from train cannot be sustained. He further contended that the first claimant in her affidavit has stated that she came to know that a dead body was found and she went to the spot and identified the body. It was also contended that the ticket was purchased by one Shekarappa who was alive and well. The body of the deceased was found near the village and Shekarappa who was stated to have purchased the ticket was not examined by claimants. He further contended that if a passenger falls down from the train, there is no way that the body would come under the train and the personal falling would necessarily be thrown away from the train and it cannot come under 8 the train. Therefore, learned counsel sought to set- aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the only point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the impugned award passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation of `4 lakhs with 6% interest from the date of application till the date of the award and 9% interest thereafter till realization is just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case?"
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the entire material on record.
11. It is an admitted fact that the deceased Chandrappa died on 11.11.2010 and same was informed by R.W.1 Mariyappa Thimmappa, key man, that in railway KM No.270/500-600 between Holalkere- Chikkajajur railway stations, a dead body of one 9 unknown person aged about 60 years is found. The jurisdictional police registered a criminal case under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on sending the FIR to the concerned Taluk Executive Magistrate and higher officials concerned, the ASI has conducted investigation and visited the spot and found that in between Holalkere-Chikkajajur railway station near railway KM No.270/5-6 a dead body was not in unidentifiable condition because of the crush injuries on head and face. The widow of the deceased went to the spot, identified the dead body. Thereafter, claimants filed an application for compensation. The railways authorities denied the incident and submitted that the deceased committed suicide and contended that the police have planted the ticket and created a story.
12. Considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal recorded a specific finding that Ex.A.1 FIR 10 registered under UDR No.65/2010 based on the message of station master/ Holalkere Railway Station, Ex.A.3, inquest report of GRP vide UDR No.65/2010 clearly indicates that the deceased Chandrappa was found in between Holalkere-Chikkajajur railway stations at railway KM 270/500-600 and the witnesses to the panch was of the opinion that while deceased was alive he fell down from the train and succumbed to injuries. Ex.A.9, the final report also corroborates the same. Ex.A.7 post mortem report clearly indicates that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of crush injuries to (head) brain and that is due to railway accident. Ex.A.8 copy of the card ticket No.33147 from Nulenur to Sasalu dated 11.11.2010 corroborates that deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident. Ex.A.3 inquest report at para 7 reveals that ticket was recovered from the shirt pocket of the deceased during inquest. R.W.1 Sri Mariyappa Thimmappa, witness on behalf of railway stated on oath 11 that on 11.11.2010 at about 9.30 am at KM No.270/5- 6, he saw public gathering near the unmanned level crossing and next to the railway track, found a dead body lying annexed to the railway track and apart from noticing the dead body of a person and reporting the same to the station master, he does not know anything about the incident. Therefore, the contention of the railway authority that Chandrappa died not due to fall from train and was not a bonafide passenger cannot be accepted. As already stated above, Ex.A.3/inquest report, Ex.A.7/ postmortem report, Ex.A.9/final report and Ex.A.8 copy of card ticket No.33147 from Nulenur to Sasalu dated 11.11.2010, clearly depicts that Chandrappa died due to fall from train and was bonafide passenger at the time of the accident. The material on record clearly indicates that deceased Chandrappa died due to railway accident. 12
13. In view of the provisions of Section 123(c) of the Railway Act, 'untoward incident' means, 'the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers'. Section 124-A, explains the 'compensation on account of untoward incident' and states that a 'passenger' includes 'a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers', on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident'.
14. In the present case, admittedly, Ex.A.8 copy of the card ticket No.33147 from Nulenuru to Sasalu shows that the deceased Chandrappa was a bonafide passenger traveling in a train carrying valid platform ticket and becomes victim of an untoward incident. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation.
15. Though the present appellant denied the accident and stated that the deceased was not a bonafide 13 passenger, but the fact remains that RW-1 examined on behalf of the railway has not tendered any evidence to show that accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and he was not a bonafide passenger. In the absence of any contra evidence/document produced by railway department, it clearly depicts that deceased was a passenger as on the date of the accident on a valid platform ticket and became victim of an 'untoward incident'. Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased viz., respondents/ applicants are entitled to compensation.
16. My view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & others reported in 2008 Kart M.A.C. 545(SC) which reads as under:
'10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying 14 to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers'. Hence, it is an 'untoward incident' as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.
11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations.
14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression 'accidental falling 15 of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford traveling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.16
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act in the case of Balagoni Siva Prasad vs. Union of India reported in 2009 ACJ 1332 held as under:
"In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, it must be held that the impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the claim on the ground that the appellant had fallen from the train due to his own negligence while boarding and, therefore, the Railways are not liable to pay compensation, in view of the exception contained in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. As held by the Apex court in the above decision, the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passangers' including accidents when a bonafide passenger i.e., a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass in trying to enter into a railway train and falls own during the process and in view 17 of applicability of doctrine of strict liability in respect of claims arising under Section 124-A of act, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. The respondent railways, is therefore, held liable to pay the compensation to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him."
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jameela vs. UOI reported in 2010 ACJ 2453(SC) held as under:
"Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railway that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental.
The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell 18 down, is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124 A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.
19. The Tribunal considering both oral and documentary evidence on record and considering the provisions of Section 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, has proceeded to pass the impugned order. The same is in accordance with law. The appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal exercising powers under 19 the provisions of Section 23(1) of Railways Claims Tribunal, 1987. Accordingly appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm