Karnataka High Court
Smt.Basamma W/O Late Shanthreddy vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2013
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
1
MFA NO.30723/2011 A/W
MISC.CVL.NO.151830/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
M.F.A.No.30723 OF 2011 (RCT)
A/W
MISC.CVL.NO.151830/2011
BETWEEN:
SMT. BASAMMA
W/O LATE SHANTHREDDY
AGE: 28 YEARS
NOW RESIDING AT BASAVESHWAR NAGAR
STATION AREA, YADGIRI
YADGIRI TALUK
DISTRICT: GULBARGA (NOW DIST: YADGIRI)
... APPELLANT
COMMON
(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI
... RESPONDENT
COMMON
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 14.08.2009 PASSED IN O.A.NO.II(u) 108/2008
ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BANGALORE
BENCH, WHEREIN, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATIN FILED BY
THE APPLICANT U/S. 16 OF THE RCT ACT.
2
MFA NO.30723/2011 A/W
MISC.CVL.NO.151830/2011
MISC.CVL.NO.151830/2011 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF
THE LIMITATION ACT, PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 478
DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL & MISC.CVL. APPLICATION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
H.G.RAMESH, J.(Oral):
There is a delay of more than one year and three months (478 days) in filing the appeal. However, in the interest of justice, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the merits of the appeal and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal.
2. This is a claimant's appeal against dismissal of her claim application filed for grant of compensation for the death of her husband. The case of the claimant is that her husband died due to fall from the train when he was travelling from Thangundi village to Yadgiri.
3. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was factually travelling in the train on 3 MFA NO.30723/2011 A/W MISC.CVL.NO.151830/2011 15.01.2008 or that he fell from the train and died. The Tribunal, on a detailed consideration of the evidence on record, has found that the deceased had died while crossing the railway lane. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased as reflected in the post mortem report - Ex.P9, while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion.
4. It is useful to refer to the following reasoning of the Tribunal:
"Moreover, the nature of injuries and the cause of the death in the copy of the PM Report, Exhibit A-9, would show that the death of the deceased could not have occurred due to a fall from the train. Even the situation of the dead body of the deceased, would manifest that he could not have fallen down from the train by which he was travelling. Therefore, the material placed on record, is neither sufficient nor satisfactory to hold that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident, while he was travelling as a passenger on the train. From a perusal of the Sections 123 (c) (2) and 124-A, it is quite clear that the sine qua non for claiming compensation on account of death or injury sustained in an untoward incident is that the victim of an untoward 4 MFA NO.30723/2011 A/W MISC.CVL.NO.151830/2011 incident or his dependants as the case may be, must necessarily establish that the victim or the deceased had accidentally fallen from a train. In the instant case, the applicant has miserably failed to establish that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the train. Therefore, the question of proof by the respondent railway administration that the death of the deceased was not the result of an untoward incident does not arise. In fact, the material placed on record by the applicant herself, as per Exhibits A-2 & A-3, would reveal that the death of the deceased might have occurred, while he was crossing the railway track. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondent railway administration stands probablised from the material placed on record by the applicant herself. It is no doubt true that Sections 123 (c) and 124-A being a beneficent legislations, should be interpreted liberally, but, that does not however contemplate unjust enrichment. Therefore, the mere assertion of the applicant without any reliable evidence, which is acceptable in the eye of the law, is not sufficient to satisfy the burden placed upon the applicant. As I have already stated, the claim of the applicant that the death of the deceased had occurred due to a fall from the train, is not supported by any material and is based on conjecture and surmise and hence, it cannot be sustained in Law. The situation of the dead body of the deceased in between the railway track and the nature of injuries found on the dead body of the deceased would point out that the accident must have occurred, while the deceased was crossing the railway 5 MFA NO.30723/2011 A/W MISC.CVL.NO.151830/2011 track. There is no evidence to show that the deceased had been a passenger with a valid ticket. The facts of the case and the surrounding circumstances do not show that the deceased was a passenger and he has died on account of untoward incident. The applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. She has tired to take advantage of an unfortunate death of the deceased, which might have occurred, while he was crossing the railway track."
(underlining supplied)
5. Learned counsel for the appellant was not able to refer to any acceptable evidence to show that the deceased was travelling in the train on the date of his death. I find no legal infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence made by the Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of merit. Hence, both Misc.Cvl.No.151830/2011 filed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal stand dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG