Karnataka High Court
Janakkamma vs Union Of India on 3 November, 2022
Author: Ravi V. Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V. Hosmani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.669 OF 2014 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. JANAKKAMMA
W/O.LATE.Y.N.RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
RESIDING AT
RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
AMMASANDRA,
THURVEKERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 211,
KARNATAKA STATE.
2. R J BANU
D/O LATE.Y.N.RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
AMMASANDRA,
THURVEKERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 211,
KARNATAKA STATE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. R.G. HALESHA, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBLI-580 020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SATISH KUMAR N., ADVOCATE)
******************
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 29.05.2013 PASSED IN OA II
U.40/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED U/SEC 16 OF THE
RCT ACT, 1987.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Challenging the order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short, 'Tribunal') in application No. O.A. II U 40/2010, this appeal is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel.
3. The facts as stated are, that the appellants herein were applicants in application No. O.A. II U 40/2010, before Tribunal, filed under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation from respondent - Railways for death of Yathish @ Yogisha who died on account of an untoward incident that occurred on 15.04.2006. In application it was stated that deceased Yathish had purchased a ticket to travel from Tumakuru to Ammasandra on 15.04.2006 and boarded train. Because of heavy rush, he was standing near door. When train was 4 approaching Ammasandra, due to sudden jerk, he fell down from moving train, came under the wheels and his head got severed, leading to his death. Claiming compensation on account of his death, application was filed by mother and sister of deceased.
4. On service of notice, respondent filed written statement disputing claim and denying liability. It was contended that deceased was not a bonafide passenger and ticket found in his pocket was planted at the time of inquest as it pertained to previous day. It was further contended that more than seven trains had passed on that route and neither driver nor guard of any of trains had reported incident to nearest Station Master which would otherwise have not gone unnoticed if deceased had fallen from moving train. It was contended that deceased had died on account of his own negligence and therefore respondent was not responsible to pay compensation. 5
5. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed the following issues:
" 1. Whether there was any untoward incident?
2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger?
3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased?
4. Whether the applicants are entitled for any relief and the interest as prayed in the claim applicant? if so, to what extent? "
6. Thereafter, applicant No.1 was examined herself and got marked Exhibits A1 to A11. On behalf of the respondent, they did not lead oral evidence but got marked DRM's report as Ex.R1 with consent.
7. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in negative and consequently held that issue nos.2 and 3 would not survive for consideration and by answering issue no.4 in the negative as death not having occurred on 6 account of any untoward incident, dismissed claim application. Challenging same, claimants are in this appeal.
8. Sri. Halesha R.G., learned counsel for appellants submitted that impugned award passed by Tribunal was unsustainable in law and contrary to facts and records.
9. Only reason assigned for dismissal of claimants' application was that as per Ex.A2 - Case Diary and Ex.A6 - Post Mortem Report, there were no injuries found on other parts of body and death was due to severance of neck from body. Referring to same, Tribunal firstly inferred that possibility of deceased by falling in between two rails if he had fallen from running train would be impossible. Secondly, if he had fallen from running train, he would have sustained injuries on other parts of his body, whereas none were noticed. It was also observed that there was no indication of dragging of body etc. which ruled out possibility of deceased falling down from running 7 train and considering manner of occurrence, Tribunal held that no untoward incident had occurred.
10. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court to entry in Column nos.7 & 8 of Annexure - A2 - Case Diary which indicated that apart from severance of neck, other injuries were also noted on deceased. Further entries also indicate that dead body was found in middle of railway track near Ammasandra Railway Station Platform on southern side. It was submitted that though it was mentioned in Annexure-A6 Post Mortem Report that there were no other injuries on body except severance of neck, fact that entries in Annexure-A2 Case Diary are corroborated by panchas, does not support conclusion of Tribunal.
11. Learned counsel for respondent sought to support impugned Judgment.
8
12. From above submission, it is not in dispute that Yathish died on 15.04.2006 when his head got severed from body and his dead body was found lying on railway tracks near Ammasandra Station. While claimants contend that it was due to an untoward incident of falling down from running train while travelling from Tumakuru to Ammasandra as passenger standing near door of train compartment and coming under train, respondent - Railways deny and dispute same.
13. In order to establish that death occurred due to an untoward incident, applicants produced copies of Schedule B, case-diary, statement of mother of deceased, statement of B. Vishwanath, railway ticket dated 15.04.2006 from Tumakuru to Ammasandra, Post Mortem Report, ration card, EPIC Cards, genealogy tree & FIR as Annexures - A1 to A11 respectively.
14. The material documents to establish that death of Yathish was due to an untoward incident would be 9 Annexure-A5 train ticket, which as per Annexure-A2 case- diary, was found on body of deceased. Same would establish that he had travelled from Tumakuru to Ammasandra. Annexure-A2 case-diary would indicate that his body was found on railway track and there were injuries on his body, apart from neck being cut. In Annexure-A6 - Post Mortem Report, conclusion of doctor is that death was due to hemorrhage and shock due to passing of wheels of train over neck region. While passing impugned Award, Tribunal has come to conclusion that if deceased had fallen from running train, there was no possibility of his landing in between rails and that too without sustaining any injuries other than fatal injury on neck. It is observed by Tribunal that there was a possibility that due to his own negligence, deceased had died by coming under train. But at outset such reasoning will have to be discounted on very same logic applied that it would be impossible that deceased would not have sustained any other injury if it were a case of suicide or negligence. The 10 fact that doctor in Annexure-A6 Post Mortem Report has concluded that death was due to train wheels running over person of deceased would clinch the case in favour of applicants.
15. Though respondent Railways disputed train travel by deceased by contending that ticket was inserted subsequently, there is no evidence to that effect. Under circumstances, considering contents of Annexure-A2 case- diary and conclusion of doctor in Annexure-A6 Post Mortem Report, impugned Award would liable to be set aside.
Hence, following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
Impugned Award of Tribunal dated 29.05.2013 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in application No. O.A. II U 40/2010, is set aside.11
It is held that deceased Yathish @ Yogisha died due to an untoward incident that occurred on 15.04.2006 while he was traveling from Tumakuru to Ammasandra.
Consequently, it is held that claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of application till date of actual payment.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*