Karnataka High Court
Smt Yellamma vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16279
MFA No. 6117 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6117 OF 2016 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. YELLAMMA
W/O. LATE SRI CHANDAPPA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
2 . AMRESH
S/O. LATE SRI CHANDAPPA
AGED 20 YEARS,
3 . NAVIN KUMAR
S/O. LATE SRI CHANDAPPA
AGED 18 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by
RAMYA D 4 . KUMARI ASHWINI
Location: LATE SRI CHANDAPPA,
HIGH AGED 16 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BEING MINOR
REP. BY N/M & G
THE FIRST APPELLANT
ALL ARE RESIDING AT L B S NAGAR,
NEAR SIDDAPPA HOTEL,
RAICHUR - 584 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.J. SANGHVI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16279
MFA No. 6117 of 2016
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY
SECUNDERABAD - 500 371.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ABHINAY.Y.T., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 17.03.2016 PASSED
IN OA II U 161/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING THE
APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the applicants challenging the judgment dated 17.03.2016 passed in claim application No.O.A II U 161/2010 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, -3- NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, thereby the application filed by the applicants seeking compensation was dismissed. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. It is the case of applicants that on 05.09.2007 the deceased left his house saying that he is going to Yadagir in connection with his work and would come on the next day by afternoon. He did not turn up and in the evening, they heard people saying in the vicinity that someone had expired by falling from train. The 1st applicant who is the wife of the deceased went to the Civil Hospital, Raichur and found the dead body of her husband.
On enquiry with the Railway Police, Raichur, they informed that while travelling from Yadagir to Raichur, he has accidentally fallen down from the train and grievously injured on his head and multiple fractures over his body and thus, succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. The applicants being the wife, sons and daughter of the deceased filed an application seeking compensation. But the Tribunal has dismissed the application on the reason -4- NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained on account of his criminal act, which comes under proviso (c) of Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submitted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, since he has travelled after purchasing the ticket and boarded in 2nd class general ticket. Therefore, submitted that, since the deceased had purchased ticket, he is a bonafide passenger. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record resulting into erroneous judgment of dismissal being passed. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and grant compensation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India appearing on behalf of the Railway Department submitted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident and no ticket was discovered at the time when RPF & IPF/GTL made joint preliminary enquiries, but inquest report reads -5- NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 the recovery of ticket from the body of the deceased. This clearly indicates that the relatives of the deceased managed some railway journey ticket and planted in the case duly depicting in the inquest report that the same was recovered from the body of the deceased. Hence, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he did not travel by train on the day of the incident and no such incident occurred as alleged by the applicants. As such, the Railway Department is not at fault and responsible for the said incident and hence, need not pay compensation to the applicants. Therefore, justified the judgment passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Upon hearing the submissions made by both the counsel, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/applicants prove that there was untoward incident and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 the deceased was a bonafide passenger?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/applicants prove that the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased?
(iii) Whether, on the facts and
circumstances involved in the
case, the respondent proves that death of the deceased is not in untoward incident?
(iv) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the applicants are entitled for compensation along with interest as prayed in the claim application? If so, to what extent?
(v) What order?
6. All the above points are taken up together for common consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts and law as they are interlinked to each other. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016
7. It is the case made out by the applicants that on 05.09.2007 the deceased left his house saying that he is going to Yadagir in connection with his work and would come on the next day by afternoon. He did not turn up and in the evening, they heard people saying in the vicinity that someone had expired by falling from train. The 1st applicant who is the wife of the deceased went to the Civil Hospital, Raichur and found the dead body of her husband. On enquiry with the Railway Police, Raichur, they informed that while travelling from Yadagir to Raichur, he has accidentally fallen down from the train and grievously injured on his head and multiple fractures over his body and thus, succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. The claim petition filed by the claimants was rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal on the reason that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident and he did not die due to the injuries sustained because of fall from train.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016
8. The Tribunal has observed that the journey ticket of the deceased was not recovered at the time of registration of the case. It has been stated in the original application filed before the Tribunal vide Para 7 where ticket details have to be stated by the applicants that "2nd class general ticket. If traced, shall be produced in the Tribunal". It is observed by the Tribunal that when the said inquest report vide Para 7 reads the recovery of ticket from the body of the deceased, what was the difficulty for applicants to mention the ticket number in their application. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
9. Further in DRM report, it is stated that the ticket is planted in the inquest report of GRP/Raichur and deceased was not a bonafide passenger and body was not found near railway track and engine oil smeared on the body. Further assigned the reason that R.W.1-Sri Eranna, Keyman/Gangman No.1 stated that on 06.09.2007 upto afternoon no incident of runover occurred in his patrolling -9- NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 area. But at about 14.00 to 14.30 hours, when the track was given line clearance for passage of 'Jayanthi Express", he noticed a person near the track and while passing of 'Jayanthi Express', the person suddenly jumped before the track, fell under it and died. He has observed this from some distance. He went to the place i.e., K.M.No.576/6-7 and noticed that the person died and conveyed the message to Station Master at about 15.10 hours. Therefore, on all these reasons, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal on trivial reasons has dismissed the claim petition, which is not in accordance with law. The Tribunal without considering the scope and ambit of the statutes in this regard and dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions has erroneously dismissed the claim petition. He argued with reference to various provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 along with
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (for short "Rules, 2003"). Therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India justified the dismissal of the claim petition.
12. Section 124A of Railways Act stipulates regarding compensation on account of untoward incident, which reads as under:
"124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident-
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 the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 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 of 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.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "passenger" includes-- a railway servant on duty; and
(i) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.]"
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016
13. Section 124A is formulated on "No Fault Liability". It provides that 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 the dependant of a passenger who has been killed is entitled for compensation. This Court in the case of Sri Mahaboob Sab and Smt. Mahaboob Jaan Vs. Union of India (UOI) South Western Railways1, wherein at paragraph No.17 it is held as under:
"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 1 (2010) 4 KCCR 2536
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 which enactment is brought about."
14. During the course of cross-examination, A.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased has admitted that she does not know anything except that the distance between her residence and railway station is about 2 kms and her husband left the house at 6.30 in the morning saying that he is going to Yadagir by train and came to know about the incident only through her neighbours who were talking about the incident that some unknown person dead body was lying near Yermerus. Sri B.Ramanna, SIPF/RFF, the then ASIPF/RPF has stated that the deceased person was not having any railway journey ticket and the incident spot is very close to Cotton Mill. Upon considering the above evidence, the Tribunal observed that there was no ticket found from the body of the deceased. The applicants colluded with police and planted the ticket in the case and the detail of the same was depicted in inquest report, but
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 the said ticket was not filed by the applicants before the Tribunal.
15. Therefore, in this regard, upon considering the evidence of the claimants and respondent, just because, the claimants have not produced the journey ticket, it cannot be said that the deceased was not the bonafide passenger. Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be expected from the claimants to retain the journey ticket after accident occurs. But it is the responsibility of the railways to produce the Daily Ticket Collection Register to prove that as to how many passengers have purchased the ticket and how many passengers actually travelled in the train. The railways are maintaining Daily Ticket Collection Register. It is worthwhile to refer paragraph No.18 in the case of Sri Mahaboob Sab (stated supra), which reads as under:
"18. Mr. Raghupathy learned Counsel appearing for respondents would contend that initial burden by claimants have
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 not been discharged to demonstrate that deceased was travelling as a valid passenger by holding a valid ticket. Though this argument looks attractive, it cannot be accepted for simple and obvious reason that in a situation where a person who falls from train and suffers multiple injuries and is shifted to an hospital on an emergent basis cannot be expected to retain the ticket, which he would have purchased and to further expect the claimants who are none other than parents of deceased to establish this fact that in fact deceased had purchased the ticket. On the other hand it is necessary to observe at this Juncture that a person who is travelling in a train is deemed to have been purchased the ticket and is travelling as a valid passenger until and unless it is rebutted by respondent to show otherwise. In the absence of this fact, this Court cannot accept the arguments of learned Counsel appearing for respondent. In view of the above finding, order of Tribunal on issue Nos. 1 and 2 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016
16. Rules 6 to 13 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, stipulates as follows:
"6. Duties of Station Superintendent-The Station Superintendent, on receipt of an information about the occurrence of an untoward incident under rule 3, shall,-
(i) make necessary entries to this effect in the station diary;
(ii) arrange for medical assistance to the injured passengers;
(iii) make out a brief report in respect of spot of the untoward incident and forward copies thereof to the Divisional Office, Zonal Railways, police and [Divisional Security Commissioner] of the Force.
7. Conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Force- (1) On receipt of information under Rule 6, an officer of the Force, [***] shall carry out the investigation and shall,-
(i) obtain copies of the inquest report, post mortem report and Jama Talashi report from the police investigating the incident
(ii) obtain a copy of the report specified under clause
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016
(iii) obtain information about the untoward incident in Form-2;
(iv)record statement of additional witnesses, if so required (v) collect any other evidence
required by the circumstances of the case.
(2) The officer of the Force, [shall complete the investigation within sixty days and] submit a report to the [authority] specified under sub-rule (2) of rule 10.
8. Conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Police-
(1) The police on receipt of the report under clause (iii) of rule 6, shall immediately initiate investigation and prepare inquest report or injury report in accordance with the procedure laid down in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
(2) After preparation of report, as mentioned in sub-rule (1), the police shall immediately give clearance certificate for movement of trains from the site of incident so that minimum delay is caused in restoration of train movement.
9. The injured and the next of kin of the deceased passenger may submit evidence and assist police
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 and Force- The injured and the next of kin of the deceased passengers may submit all the relevant evidence before the Police and assist the Police and the Force to complete the investigation.
10. Forwarding of investigation report by the Police and the Force-
(1) The police on completion of the investigation, shall forward the report thereof to the Magistrate, as required under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
(2) The officer of the Force shall forward the report prepared under sub-rule (2) of rule 7 to the [***] Divisional Security Commissioner of the Force.
(3) The Divisional Security Commissioner shall submit the report to Divisional Railway Manager within fifteen days of the receipt of report of investigation from officer of the force.
11. Action on the report by the Divisional Railway Manager-
(1) The Divisional Railway Manager, on receipt of the report, [mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 10 shall examine the same within fifteen days. (2) When, on examination, Divisional Railway Manager is satisfied that the investigation is complete, he shall
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 pass an order accepting the said report.
(3) If the Divisional Railway Manager has reason to believe that some more inquiry is required in the matter, it shall refer the same back for investigation to the officer of the Force along with his observations for further investigation.
(4) On receipt of a reference under sub-rule (3), the officer of the Force shall investigate the matter further and submit the report immediately to the Divisional Railway Manager.
12. Communication of order -
Final orders passed on the report by the Divisional Railway Manager shall be communicated to the Station Superintendent who shall maintain the records and make necessary entries in the Station Diary to this effect.
13. Sending report to claim office- (1) The investigation report along with acceptance of Divisional Railway Manager thereon shall be sent within fifteen days to the administrative in- charge of the claim office of the Zonal Railway where the incident has occurred.
(2) The administrative in-charge of claim office of the Zonal Railway who has received the notice of claim for
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 that particular incident shall arrange to collect the report from the claim office of Railway where the incident has occurred and submit the same to the concerned bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal along with the Written Statement.]"
17. Clause (c) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 defines "untoward incident" as under:
"Clause (c) of Section 123 - "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;
(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"
18. Sub-Section (2) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 reads as under:
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 "Sub-section (2)of Section 123 - the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
19. Clause (a) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 defines "accident" as, an accident of the nature described in Section 124.
20. Section 124 of Railways Act, 1989 defines "Extent of liability", which reads as under:
"124. Extent of liability- When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, 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 has suffered a loss 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 a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section "passenger" includes a railway servant on duty."
21. Therefore, upon reading of Sections 123, 124 and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, it is based on "No Fault Liability" on the part of the passenger. Whether or not there is any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or suffered loss or killed in the accident, then the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to the passengers who suffered injuries or death occurred in such an untoward incident.
22. It is not possible for the claimants to examine a person as they have witnessed that the deceased has purchased tickets and also it is not possible for the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 claimants to examine a person as eye witness to the incident. If any passenger accompanied his friend or relative, then it may be possible to examine that person as eye witness. But whereas a passenger travels alone along with other stranger passenger, then after the incident and when the claim petition is filed before the Tribunal, it is not possible for the claimant to examine any person as witness to the incident. It is not expected in this regard that the claimants to examine any person as eye witness. Expectation by the railway administration that the claimants should examine eye witness is ridicule on the part of the railway administration and it is wholly unwarranted. What the Railway Department prepares report by the Divisional Railway Manager as stated above certain duties are prescribed on the railway authorities as per Rules 6 to 13 of Rules, 2003 (stated supra).
23. Rules 6 to 13 as above stated impose bounden duty on the officials of railway authorities to perform their duties and discharge their functions when an untoward
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 incident occurs. Therefore, what the railway authorities could do and ought to perform their functions, it cannot be expected from the claimants' side. Therefore, it is not a rivers burden on the claimants to prove each and every minute aspect of the accident. But the Tribunal has committed error by expecting evidence from the claimants, which the railway authorities ought to do.
24. When the respondent-Railway has taken the contention that the claimant has not produced the railway ticket, but certain duties are cast on the Railway as per Rule 4 of Rules, 2003.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others2, wherein at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 held as under:
"9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of provisions of the Railways Act, in particular Chapter XIII which deals with the liability of Railway 2 (2023) 6 SCR 329
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123 (c) defines "untoward incident". As per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers would be an untoward incident. As per Section 124A, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of untoward incident. When in the course of working of 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 as such, would entitle a passenger who has been injured or died. The claim can be maintained to recover the damages, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law the Railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed for such untoward incident. By the explanation of the said Section clarifying about 'passenger', it would include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
10. This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 and the judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v.
Union of India,2014 scc OnLine Del
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 101 Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828 and also considered the judgement of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India,(2019)12 SCC 391 and in para 29 concluded as thus-
"We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that 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 case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani Devi Vs. Union of India3 at paragraph No.13 held as under:
3
2017 SCC Online Del 10274
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 "13. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on a judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Rani Devi v.
Union of India reported in 2018 ACJ 2681 wherein it is held that:
Railways Act, 1989, Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A-Untoward incident -- Negligence of victim -- Passenger fell down while boarding train at platform and sustained fatal injuries -- Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the grounds that deceased was not a bona fide passenger as ticket was not recovered from him but was later produced by claimant and the train in question departed before the occurrence of the incident Section 124-A is based on the principle of no fault liability and compensation cannot be denied on the ground that deceased was negligent and it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault -- Body of the deceased was found on the tracks near platform which proves the accident resulting in the death of deceased -- Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident and Railways is liable"
27. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi4 it is held that mere 4 (2019) 3 SCC 572
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative to claim that he was a bonafide passenger. At paragraph No.17.4 in the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the above legal position in this regard, which is extracted at paragraph No.17.4 as follows:
"17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that 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 case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016
28. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that liability of the Railway is a strict liability as per the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 123 and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, it is specifically provided that compensation has to be granted on account of an untoward incident, even if there is negligence on the part of bonafide passenger. In this regard, I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others5 and Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI)6. It is held that even if the bonafide passenger is guilty of negligence, the compensation has to be granted in this regard. The only way the railway can avoid the liability is to prove that the negligence is not an ordinary negligence, but it is a case of criminal negligence or a case of suicide or self inflicted injury. 5 (2008) 9 SCC 527 6 (2010) 12 SCC 443
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016
29. It is the duty cast on the railway authorities as per the Rules, 2003, mandating the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident. Therefore, it is the duty cast on the railway authorities to produce before the Tribunal the result of investigation as provided under the Rules, 2003 and it could not be expected from the claimants to produce the details of accident. The Rules, 2003, imposes mandatory duty on the railway authorities which the Station Superintendent, Guard, Conductor and Train Ticket Examiner in-charge of the train and forward report to the Magistrate as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the Divisional Security Commissioner of force and then in turn, the Divisional Security Commissioner shall submit the report to the Divisional Railway Manager within fifteen days and then the Divisional Railway Manager shall submit a report as to on what action he has taken and same shall be communicated to the Station Superintendent who shall maintain the records and make necessary entries in the station diary. The said report shall be sent within fifteen
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 days to the administrative in-charge of the Claim Office of the Zonal Railway where the incident has occurred. Therefore, in this regard, various duties are imposed at the various levels of officers of railway authorities as provided under the Rules, 2003, as above stated. Therefore, it is not proper on the Railway Authorities to put entire burden on the claimants to prove the untoward incident.
30. The accident due to railways and accident due to motor vehicle are two different aspects, which has to be considered under two different statutes. There is restriction to enter the railway premises including the railway station and generally the public are not allowed unless having valid ticket or platform ticket. The passengers can travel after purchasing journey ticket. In case, the claimants being legal representatives of the deceased are far away from the places and they could not know what is happening in the railway premises/track, therefore, it cannot be expected the details of untoward
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 incident from the claimants and also the claimants are not expected to give minor details regarding untoward incident. Therefore, in this background, the statutory mandatory provisions are made against various levels of officers of the railway authorities to conduct investigation as per Rules, 2003 and submit the report. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo Vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railways7 wherein at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 held as follows:
"4. Though Rule 27 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") mandates the Railway Authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident, admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before RCT on 27-2-2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23-4-2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased de-trained 7 (2019) 12 SCC 387
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 from the moving train at D Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railways was accepted by RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal i.e. FAO No. 535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same by cryptic and non-speaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award and the reasons assigned in support of the same, do not warrant any interference.
5. It is in these circumstances, the appellants are before us in these proceedings via Article 136 of the Constitution. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which warrants payment of compensation whenever an untoward incident occurs whether or not such an incident has occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. We are informed that, at the material time, compensation payable under the said provision was Rs.4 lakhs."
31. The provisions under the railway statutes as above discussed insofar as awarding compensation on the provisions used such as bonafide passenger, untoward incident, self inflicted injury are to be liberally construed and interpreted. The provisions under the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and its allied Rules, where compensation is to be granted towards untoward incident are made as a beneficial and welfare statutes. The beneficial or welfare statute should be construed liberally and interpreted in its true spirit, but not by adopting rigid or a strict interpretation. Therefore, the object should be given to substantial justice to the victims of Railway accident, but not by approaching technicalities. In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention the observation
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar's case wherein at paragraph No.12 it is held as under:
"12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen , Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Others, Lalappa Lingappa and Others Vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., S.M. Nilajkar and others Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, etc.,"
32. Therefore, applying the principles of law as discussed above as per statute and as per authoritative judicial pronouncement as above discussed, in the present case, A.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased has stated that the deceased left the house at 6.30 in the morning in order to go to Yadagir by train and later got to know that dead body of her husband was lying near yermerus.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016
33. On behalf of the applicants, 1st applicant who is the wife of the deceased is examined as A.W.1 and one Sri G.S.Urugundappa, Police Sub-Inspector/GRP/Raichur is examined as A.W.2 and marked documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On behalf of the respondent, one Sri Eranna, retired-Keyman/Gangman/South Central Railway is examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 through him and got marked the statement of 1st applicant as Ex.R1 and her signature as Ex.R1(a) and DRM investigation report is marked as Ex.R2.
34. Ex.A1 is the FIR registered under UDR.No.61/07 by SI/RPS/Raichur based on the message by Dy.SS/Raichur. Ex.A2 is the inquest report. In the said report, Para 7 reads the recovery of ticket No.UTS- 286F8C4159-405769-1679 from the body of the deceased. Similarly, Para 17 reads the opinion of panchas as "deceased, on 06.092007 has fallen down from the moving train and consequently, sustained injuries to his head and accidentally died". Ex.A3 is the Post Mortem Report, which
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 reads the opinion of panchas as to cause of death "due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injury and multiple fractures of bones". Ex.A4 is final report which reads inference drawn by the concerned Investigation Officer i.e., SI/RPS/Raichur with regard to cause of death of the deceased as Ex.A2-inquest report, duly closed as 'accidental death'.
35. The respondent filed the DRM's Statutory report (Ex.R1) wherein the Divisional Security Commissioner/RPF/Guntakal concluded the cause of death as "From the above enquiries, it is clearly established that the deceased person was not having any travelling authority at the time of conducting joint preliminary enquiries by GRP/RC and RPF/RC, but the relatives of the deceased had managed some Railway Journey ticket and deliberately mentioned ticket number in GRP/RC's inquest report at a later stage. This is an afterthought arrangement by the deceased relatives. Considering the
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 same, the Tribunal observed that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and body was found near railway track and engine oil smeared on the body. Therefore, all these evidence on record conclusively proves the fact that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling after purchasing the ticket and fell down from the moving train and died. Hence, the claimants have proved the fact that the deceased died in the railway accident when he was a bonafide passenger travelling after purchasing valid journey ticket. Therefore, it is proved that the death of the deceased is due to untoward incident and not a self inflicted injury. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in dismissing the claim petition.
36. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the reasonings given by the Railway Claims Tribunal is grossly incorrect and untenable on the eye of law. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be set aside.
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016
37. The post mortem report states that the cause of death of the deceased is due to "head injury and multiple fractures". Therefore, as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (the date of accident is 05.09.2007) is awarded along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others8, 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 8 (2023) 6 SCR 329
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 by the respondents within a period of eight weeks. No order as to costs."
39. 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 entitled to maximum of 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/-.
40. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016
(ii) The impugned judgment dated 17.03.2016 passed in claim application No.O.A II U 161/2010 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, is set aside.
(iii) The claimants being wife, sons and daughter of the deceased 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.
(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 claimant is 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
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16279 MFA No. 6117 of 2016 appellants/claimants are entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
(v) No order as to costs.
(vi) Draw award accordingly.
(vii) Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the Railway Claims Tribunal forthwith.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB