Karnataka High Court
Vadde Vijaya Lakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 August, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32091
MFA No. 134 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 134 OF 2018 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. VADDE VIJAYA LAKSHMI
D/O LATE GOPAL.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
2. VADDE RAJU GOPAL
S/O LATE GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
3. VADDE VIRANJANEYALU
S/O LATE GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
4. VADDE MAHALAKSHMI
D/O LATE GOPAL,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
by RAMYA D
Location: ALL ARE R/AT NITRAVATTI, VADDE STREET,
HIGH COURT ALURU TALUK, KARNOOL DISTRICT,
OF
KARNATAKA ANDRA PRADESH STATE - 518 348
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. A MANJULA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 003
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32091
MFA No. 134 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 17.07.2017 PASSED ON O.A II U 150/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for orders, with consent of learned counsel for the appellants, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The present appeal is filed by the claimants questioning the order dated 17.07.2017 passed in OA II U 150/2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed.
3. It is the case of the claimants that on 12.05.2015, the deceased was traveling from Lingampalli to Adoni after purchasing the journey ticket No.74538811 at Lingampalli Railway Station and during his journey in -3- NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR the train, he fell down accidentally between Chigunta and Sydapur Railway Station and sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
3. The claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal on the reason that the claimants have not produced any eye witness to corroborate the purchase of journey ticket by the deceased, boarding the train and fall from the train and also assigned the reason that upon inquest report, it is noticed that skull is broken and face is crushed and if such are the injuries, then in the train accident, such injuries could not have been occurred. Further, assigned the reasons that the Post Mortem Report reads that body was in a state of advanced decomposition and death of deceased has occurred 3 to 4 days back. Therefore, there is suspicion that if any person falls from the train, it does not go unnoticed for 3 to 4 days as the Keyman/Gangman of Railway Departments Official are assigned to the duty of checking the track everyday and in case of any unnatural event, they are supposed to report -4- NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR to their Higher Officials, but body was found decomposed state. Therefore, suspected the death of the deceased in the train accident. On these reasons, the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition.
4. The claimants have produced the documentary evidence viz., Ex.A1 is the FIR, Ex.A2 is the Report, Ex.A3 is the computerized journey ticket dated 12.05.2015, Ex.A4 is the inquest report, Exs.A5 & A6 are the statements of claimant No.1 before the police and Ex.A7 is the Post Mortem Report. The Railway Authorities have produced Ex.R1 - DRM's Report. Upon considering these documentary evidence, Ex.A1 is the FIR and Ex.A2 is the Report stating that the dead body was found on the track. Ex.A3 is the computerized ticket No.A 74538811 dated 12.05.2015 from Lingampalli to Adoni and C.No.38045354 dated 10.05.2015 from Adoni to Hyderabad Deccan. There is no comment made by the Tribunal regarding train ticket was seized from the body of the deceased. Therefore, on all its probabilities it is proved that the deceased had -5- NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR purchased the train ticket and traveled in the train. Therefore, it is proved that the deceased is a bonafide passenger. The reasoning given by the Tribunal that eye witnesses are not produced witnessing the deceased has purchased the journey ticket, boarding the train and fell down from the train are absurd one. This reasoning is highly ridiculous that many hundred numbers of passengers purchased the tickets from the counter and could not be expected to lead evidence of eye witness purchasing the ticket. This reasoning is completely absurd in nature. Therefore, this shows the non-application mind of the Tribunal.
5. The other reason assigned by the Tribunal is that as per the inquest Report at Ex.A4, skull is broken and face is crushed and this being so, there could not be chances of sustaining these type of injuries in the rail accident. This reasoning is also highly ridiculous on the reason that when an accident happens, it cannot be expected that such and such nature of injuries are only -6- NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR occurred and not other else. In any accident, what are the nature of injuries sustained no one can say particular injuries are only occurred in the accident. Therefore, this reasoning of the Tribunal is also not correct.
6. Further, the reason given by the Tribunal that body was in advanced decomposition state and accident was occurred about 3 to 4 days back. Therefore, suspected the death of the deceased in the accident since as per impression of the Tribunal Keyman/Gangman are attending the track daily for checking. Therefore, the body was unnoticed for 3 to 4 days is not believable. This reasoning is also does not have merit. Just because the body fell on the track and was not attended for 3 to 4 days, that cannot be a ground to suspect the death of the deceased on the track in the train accident. Sometimes, the dead body was found on the track far away from the Stations, there could be chances that the keyman/gangman had not attended the track daily. A single day if attending the track for checking purposes has -7- NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR lapsed, then quite naturally the body would be found after 2 to 3 days. There is no evidence from the Railway Authority that on 12.05.2015 and 13.05.2015 the keyman/gangman had checked the track and reported that the track is clear. There is no such Report from the Railway Authorities before the Tribunal. Therefore, considering the reasons assigned by the Tribunal as discussed above, the reasons are found to be on an imaginary basis, assumption and presumption only. Therefore, the reasons given by the Tribunal are not correct. Therefore, the approach of the Tribunal is perverse in nature.
7. 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 1 (2024) 9 SCC 656 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR 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 case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
8. 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 2 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5098 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR 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."
9. In the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. RINA DEVA3, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"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), 3 AIR 2018 SC 2362
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR 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 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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR 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 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
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR 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."
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."
10. 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
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR the respondent-railway authorities. Therefore, the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
11. The deceased died in the accident on 12.05.2015.
12. 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."4
(2023) 6 SCR 329
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KAMUKAYI AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS5 has observed at paragraph No.22, which reads as follows:
"22. The said judgment was further explained by this Court in Radha Yadav6, relevant para 11 is reproduced as thus:
"11. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi7 is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures would be the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000. If, however, the 5 (2023) 19 SCC 116 6 Union of India V. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410 7 Union of India V. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000 the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration."
14. Therefore, as per this order, if the compensation amount awarded with interest exceeds a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, then the compensation would be in terms of figure excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the present case also, the accident occurred is before 01.01.2017. Hence, by granting award of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, if it exceeds Rs.8,00,000/-, then the said exceeded amount shall be given to the appellants/claimants. If the final figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-.
15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR
(ii) The impugned judgment dated 17.07.2017 passed in claim application No.O.A II U 150/2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, is set aside.
(iii) Consequently, the claim application of the claimants/appellants is allowed. The claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of ₹8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claimants being the children of the deceased, the entire compensation shall be released in their favour, equally;
(iv) The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondent Railway authorities, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;
(v) Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, forthwith;
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32091 MFA No. 134 of 2018 HC-KAR
(vi) Draw award accordingly.
(vii) No order as to costs.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10