Karnataka High Court
Mr Rajesh M K vs Union Of India on 23 August, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6752 OF 2017 (RCT)
BETWEEN :
1. MR. RAJESH M.K.,
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O NO.9/2, 3RD CROSS, M.M. LAYOUT,
BEHIND SOUBHAGYA SCHOOL,
KAVAL BYRASANDRA, R.T.NAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 032.
2. MR.MALATHESH
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA,
(SINCE MISSING FROM 01.11.2007 BY HIS WIFE)
M. SARASWATHI,
W/O MALATHESH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O NO.58, CHIKKANNAYYAPPA LAYOUT,
3RD CROSS, M.M.LAYOUT, KAVAL BYRASANDRA,
R.T.NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 032.
3. SMT. SUJATHA N. PATIL
W/O NINGANAGOWDA,
D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
R/O NO.57/7, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
2
GANGANAGAR LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 032.
4. SMT. SHOBHA
W/O SURESH KATTI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
R/O GUDAGERI, KUNDAGOLA TALUK,
DHARWAD DIST - 581 113.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBLI - 580 020.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI BYREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ABHNAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON
FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Hiremathad, learned counsel for appellants and Sri.Byre Gowda., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Abhinay.Y.T., for respondent have appeared in person. 3
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal.
3. An application came to be filed under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondent Railways for payment of compensation on account of death of one Neelambika wife of Mahadevappa Katti in an untoward incident.
It is stated on 08.12.2012 that one Neelambika wife of Mahadevappa Katti was proceeding to Hubli. She was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket bearing No.E-958522189. It is stated that she was boarding the train which was stationed at Road No.2. While she was crossing the Road No.1 as there was no foot over bridge in Gudageri Station to reach Road No.2, a Train No.56516 coming from the opposite direction hit her and as such she 4 sustained multiple grievous injuries and she was taken to Gudgeri PHC, wherein she died during the treatment. Contending that it is an untoward incident, the applicants claimed compensation.
After issuance of notice, the Railway-authority filed reply statement disputing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. They stated that the claim made out by the applicants does not come within the ambit of Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
They contended that it is not an untoward incident and it is a case of self-inflicted injury. They specifically contended that the deceased was attempting to get on board on the other track by crossing the Road No.1. It is also contended that the cause of death was not due to any accidental fall amounting to untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act. Among other grounds they prayed for the dismissal of the claim. 5
On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues. The first applicant was examined as AW-1 and one more witness was examined as AW-2 and got marked documents A-1 to A-14. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence. They filed DRM's report which is marked as Ex.R1.
On summary of action, the Tribunal vide order dated 12.04.2017 rejected the claim. It is this order which is challenged in this Appeal on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is not proper either in law or on facts and evidence in the case.
Next, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not believing the evidence of AW-1. It is submitted that it was specifically mentioned in the inquest report that the deceased was a bona fide passenger having a valid journey ticket.
6
A further submission is made that the without appreciating the factual aspects, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that the deceased was trying to cross the track and died on her own negligence. The Tribunal has ignored the fact that there was no foot over bridge for the passengers to reach Road No.2; the respondents are bound to provide passenger amenities to reach another platform.
Learned counsel vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in not noticing that the respondent had failed to prove by cogent evidence that the incident is not an untoward incident.
Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and accordingly he submitted that the appeal may be allowed.
5. Sri.Byregowda., learned counsel for the Railways justified the order of the Tribunal. 7
Next, he submitted that the claim made out by the claimants does not come within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Act.
A further submission is made that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. She has not travelled by train and not fell down from any train. There is no eye witness to the incident.
Lastly, he submitted that the Tribunal in extenso referred to the material on record and rejected the claim. The appellants have not made out any good grounds to interfere with the order. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of parties and perused the records with care.
7. Now the question for determination in the instant appeal is as to whether the death of the deceased 8 in the aforesaid manner is covered by Section 124-A of the Railways Act or not?
Suffice it to note that Sections 123 to 129 contained in Chapter XIII of the Railways Act deal with the liability of Railway Administration for Death and Injury to Passengers due to railway accidents.
Now it has to be examined as to whether the claim of the appellants in the instant case is covered under Section 124-A of the Railways Act or not.
I may with advantage refer to Section 124-A of the Railways Act and which reads as under:-
"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.- 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 was killed to maintain an action and recover damages in 9 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, 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."
This Section was introduced by the Parliament by Railways (Amendment) Act (28 of 1994). This Section provides for awarding compensation to 'victims of 10 untoward incident' which occurs in the course of working of a railway.
Reverting to the facts of the case, on 08.12.2012, the deceased was travelling from Hubli to Gadugeri Railway Station with a valid journey ticket.
Suffice it to note that in order to board the train which was stationed at Road No.2, she negligently crossed Road No.1 and the Train No.56516 coming from the opposite direction hit her and she sustained injuries and thereafter she died.
The DRM's report depicts that the deceased was negligently and carelessly without adopting safety measures crossing the track while Train No.56516 was approaching on Road No.2 which resulted in her run over. It is a common sense that crossing the track is dangerous.
The Tribunal in extenso referred to the material on record and held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and also concluded that the deceased was run 11 over by some unknown train and died. In my view, the order of the Tribunal is justified. The appeal is devoid of merits. I refuse to invite interference with the order of the Tribunal.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. To conclude, let me take the opportunity to send a message to the general public that TRACKS ARE FOR TRAINS. SEE TRACKS? THINK TRAIN. ALWAYS EXPECT A TRAIN. STOP TRAINS CAN'T. LOOK, LISTEN AND LIVE.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN