Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Smt Sharifa on 10 October, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
M.F.A.No.6439/2009 C/W M.F.A.No.4037/2010 (RCT)
MFA No.6439/2009
BETWEEN:
The Union of India
Rep. by its General Manager
South Central Railway
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. ... Appellant
(By Sri N.S.Sanjay Gowda, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt.Sharifa
W/o late Arif Miya, 26 Years
2. Kumari Shaheen
D/o late Arif Miya, 8 Years
Minor rep. by her mother - 1st respondent
3. Smt.Hussain Bee
W/o late Lal Mohammed, 66 Years
All are r/at Jajapur Village
Narayanpet Mandal
Mahaboobnagar District. A.P., ... Respondents
(By Sri S.J.Sanghvi, Advocate)
This appeal is filed under section 23(1) of Railways Claims
Tribunal Act, to set aside the judgment dated 26.06.2009, passed
in OA No.(II U) 5/2008, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore Bench, awarding compensation & etc.
2
MFA No.4037/2010
BETWEEN:
1. Smt.Sharifa
W/o late Arif Miya, 27 Years
2. Kumari Shaheen
D/o late Arif Miya, 9 Years
Minor rep. by natural mother
and guardian Smt.Sharifa
3. Smt.Hussain Bee
W/o late Lal Mohammed, 67 Years
All are r/of Jajapur Village
Narayanpet Mandal
Mahaboobnagar District. A.P. ... Appellants
(By Sri S.J.Sanghvi, Advocate)
AND:
Union of India
Rep. by the General Manager
South Central Railway
Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. ... Respondent
(By Sri N.S.Sanjay Gowda, Advocate)
This appeal is filed under section 23(1) of Railways
Claims Tribunal Act, to modify the award dated 26.06.2009,
passed in OA No.(II U)5/2008, on the file of the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench.
***
These appeals coming on for hearing this day, the
court delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
MFA No.6439/2009 is filed by Railways to set aside the impugned award. MFA No.4037/2010 is filed by claimants for awarding interest from the date of application till the date of deposit.
2. I have heard learned counsel for Railways and learned counsel for claimants.
3. The learned counsel for Railways would submit that claimants have failed to produce ticket held by deceased. The Railway Claims Tribunal should not have held that deceased was a bonafide passenger and claimants are entitled to compensation under sections 124-A & 123(c)(2) of Railways Act, 1989.
4. It is established from evidence on record that deceased Arif Miya had boarded train at Yadgir, he slipped down from train and succumbed to injuries at the spot. 4
5. The learned counsel for Railways would submit that in the inquest report, it is shown that deceased met with natural death. There was no untoward incident. Therefore, the Railway Claims Tribunal should not have awarded compensation under sections 124-A & 123(c)(2) of Railways Act, 1989.
6. In the inquest report, it is shown that deceased had suffered injuries to his head. It is also stated that real cause of death has to be ascertained during investigation. In the copy of post-mortem examination report, it is stated that deceased had suffered head injury and death was due to coma as a result of injury to head. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for Railways cannot be accepted.
7. The wife of deceased has given evidence and produced ticket held by deceased.
8. The learned counsel for Railways would submit that the wife of deceased examined as AW1 had travelled up to Bombay, without noticing so-called accidental fall of 5 deceased from the train. It is only after reaching Mumbai, she realised that deceased had met with the accident and she returned back. The conduct of AW1 looks unnatural and tickets produced by the wife of deceased is not free from suspicion.
9. The learned counsel for claimants would justify the impugned award.
10. On hearing learned counsel for parties, it is necessary to see the background of AW1 and deceased.
11. At the time of accident, deceased and his wife (AW1) went to Mumbai in search of work. They belong to a class of migrated labourer. AW1 is an illiterate lady. AW1 and deceased were travelling in a general compartment. Therefore, she was not able to see the deceased when he fell down from train in Yadgir Railway Station.
12. Considering the background of AW1 (claimant), it is not possible to hold that she had concocted documents. In 6 the circumstances, the submission of learned counsel for Railways cannot be accepted.
13. The Tribunal has omitted to award interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and interest at 9% per annum after the award till the date of deposit.
14. Therefore, I pass the following:-
ORDER MFA No.6439/2009 filed by Railways is dismissed. MFA No.4037/2010 filed by claimants is accepted. The claimants are entitled to interest on compensation awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and interest at 9% per annum from the date of award till the date of deposit.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN