Karnataka High Court
Hussen Bee @ Hussain Bi vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:17775
MFA No. 2524 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MFA NO.2524 OF 2020 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. HUSSEN BEE @ HUSSAIN BI
W/O LATE SYED SHARIEF AT SYED SHARIF SAB
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE
2. NAZANYA BHANU @ NAZIYA BANU
D/O LATE SYED SHARIEF AT SYED SHARIF SAB
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
3. DADA PEER
S/O LATE SYED SHARIEF AT SYED SHARIF SAB
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
4. SHAEENA VI BANU @ SAHERA BANU
Digitally
signed by D/O LATE SYED SHARIEF AT SYED SHARIF SAB
RAMYA D AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 5. ASSIF @ AZEEPU
KARNATAKA S/O LATE SYED SHARIEF AT SYED SHARIF SAB,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
APPLICANT NO.3 TO 5 ARE MINORS HENCE REP. BY
THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER BY NAME
HUSSEN BEE AT HUSSAIN BI I.E. 1ST APPLICANT.
RESIDING AT KAMAL SAB PLAYA
HULIYAR HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:17775
MFA No. 2524 of 2020
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA STATE -572228.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A MANJULA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI
2. BIBI JAAN
W/O SYED SAB,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE, R/AT KAMAL SAB PALYA
HULIYUR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE PIN-572228.
(APPLICANTS ONLY THE LEGAL HERIS
OF THE ABOVE CASE
DATED 22.04.2025 THIS HON'BLE COURT
HAS DELETED THE RESPONDENT NO.2)
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED; VIDE ORDER DTD 22.04.2025
APPELLANTS ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED. 22.03.2019, PASSED IN CLAIM APPLICATION NO. OA
II U 064 OF 2017, ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:17775
MFA No. 2524 of 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT
The claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.03.2019 passed in claim application No.O.A II U No.64/2017 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, thereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed.
2. The Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the claimants for seeking compensation on the reason that the deceased was not the bonafide passenger and the deceased had not fallen down from the train. On these two reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
3. Heard the argument from both sides and perused the records.
4. Soon after the death of the deceased in the accident, body would be shifted to the hospital for post mortem examination and in such an event, after removing of clothes the ticket might have been lost. Therefore, due to not preserving the journey ticket promptly is not the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:17775 MFA No. 2524 of 2020 ground to negate the claim of the applicants. The practical aspect has to be considered when death occurred due to accident as to whether it is possible in every case to produce the journey ticket.
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 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 1 (2024) 9 SCC 656 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:17775 MFA No. 2524 of 2020 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."
7. In the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. RINA DEVA3, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
22010 SCC OnLine Kar 5098 3 AIR 2018 SC 2362 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:17775 MFA No. 2524 of 2020 "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:
"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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:17775 MFA No. 2524 of 2020 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 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 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:17775 MFA No. 2524 of 2020 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. 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."-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:17775 MFA No. 2524 of 2020 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. As per Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the compensation is to be payable on the principle of strict liability. Therefore, the claimants have proved their claim as discussed above and are entitled for compensation from the respondent-railway authorities. Therefore, the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
9. The deceased died in the accident on 21.05.2016. 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.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17775 MFA No. 2524 of 2020
10. 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 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."
11. 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 4 (2023) 6 SCR 329
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17775 MFA No. 2524 of 2020 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 compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment dated 22.03.2019 passed in claim application No.O.A II U No.64/2017 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, is set aside.
(iii) The claimants 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.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17775 MFA No. 2524 of 2020
(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 claimants are 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 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
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30