Karnataka High Court
Smt. Hussain Bee @ Fatima vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16278
MFA No. 3318 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3318 OF 2014 (RCT)
BETWEEN
1. SMT. HUSSAIN BEE @ FATIMA
W/O. LATE AKBAR BASHA,
AGED 35 YEARS,
2. KUMARI SANA,
D/O. LATE AKBAR BASHA,
AGED 17 YEARS,
3. MASTER YESEEN
S/O. LATE AKBAR BASHA,
AGED 12 YEARS,
4. AHMED SAB,
Digitally
signed by S/O. LATE KASIM SAB,
RAMYA D AGED 69 YEARS,
Location: (SINCE DECEASED ON 07/12/2011)
HIGH
COURT OF BY LRS, APPELLANTS 1,2,3 AND 4
KARNATAKA
V/O DATED 23.03.2015.
4 A. SMT. AHMED BEE,
W/O. AHMED SAB,
AGED 64 YEARS,
APPELLANT 2 AND 3 ARE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16278
MFA No. 3318 of 2014
REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO.1.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MALLAT VILLAGE, TQ.MANVI,
AZADNAGAR, RAICHUR-584 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.J. SANGHVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REP BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY
SECUNDERABAD - 500 371.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.24.12.2013 PASSED
IN OA II U 90/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, NOT ALLOWING
THE CLAIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:16278
MFA No. 3318 of 2014
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the applicants challenging the judgment dated 24.12.2013 passed in Claim Application No.O.A II U 90/2009 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, thereby the application filed by the applicants seeking compensation was dismissed. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. It is the case of applicants that on 11.11.2008 in the morning the deceased and two others went to Nalwar to see a bride for his relative. He had informed the applicants that by evening he would return back to residence by intercity train. In the night, the applicants were informed by the railway police that one male person has fallen from the train and expired. The applicants being the wife, son, daughter, mother and father of the deceased filed an application seeking compensation. But the Tribunal has dismissed the application on the reason that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submitted that relevant exhibits such as FIR, inquest report, post mortem report, statement of applicant clearly establish the fact that the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident and the train was over crowded, due to which, the deceased lost his balance and accidentally, fell from the train. But the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record resulting into erroneous judgment of dismissal being passed. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and grant compensation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India appearing on behalf of the Railway Department submitted that from the enquiries it is clearly established that the deceased was first noticed by Sri S.K.Babu, Night Patrol man, Gang No.2 of Raichur at KM No.564/8-9 near LC gate No.218 at Raichur and none of the passengers and administration noticed him. Moreover, the deceased did not possess any travelling authority at the time of conducting inquest. The claimants -5- NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 have produced the ticket No.77858429 Ex: Nalwar to Raichur, which is an afterthought arrangement and a created one for claim. Hence, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he did not travel by train on the day of the incident and no such incident occurred as alleged by the applicants. As such, the Railway Department is not at fault and responsible for the said incident and hence, need not pay compensation to the applicants.
5. Further submitted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as no journey ticket was found on the body of deceased at the time of inquest. Hence, the details of the ticket mentioned in Col.No.7 is not true and it is an afterthought arrangement made for the purpose of this claim and also no complaint or report from driver, guard or public is received either by police or railway authorities, with regard to the fall of deceased from train. Therefore, justified the judgment passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
6. Upon hearing the submissions made by both the counsel, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/applicants prove that there was untoward incident and the deceased was a bonafide passenger?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/applicants prove that the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased?
(iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the respondent proves that death of the deceased is not in untoward incident?
(iv) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the applicants are entitled for compensation along with interest as prayed in the claim application? If so, to what extent?
(v) What order?-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
7. All the above points are taken up together for common consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts and law as they are interlinked to each other.
8. It is the case made out by the applicants that on 11.11.2008 the deceased and two others went to Nalwar to see a bride for his relative. He had informed the applicants that by evening he would return back to residence by intercity train. In the night, the applicants were informed by the railway police that one male person has fallen from the train and expired. The claim petition filed by the claimants was rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal on the reason that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident and he did not die due to the injuries sustained because of fall from train.
9. The Tribunal has observed that there was no ACP, report or information from passengers, driver, guard on 11.11.2008 with regard to anybody falling from any -8- NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 train. Also, there is no mention of train number or name from which the deceased fell down. It is further observed by the Tribunal that the ticket was not recovered by police during inquest panchanama. Ticket was sought to be produced after closure of evidence by the applicants and that too after the restoration of the application subsequent to dismissal on account of non-prosecution. Though, the Tribunal directed the applicants to file the certified copy of the ticket within 15 days on 10.02.2012, but the same was not complied with.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal on trivial reasons has dismissed the claim petition, which is not in accordance with law. The Tribunal without considering the scope and ambit of the statutes in this regard and dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions has erroneously dismissed the claim petition. He argued with reference to various provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 along with -9- NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (for short "Rules, 2003"). Therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India justified the dismissal of the claim petition.
12. Section 124A of Railways Act stipulates regarding compensation on account of untoward incident, which reads as under:
"124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident-
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 has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 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 of 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.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "passenger" includes-- a railway servant on duty; and
(i) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.]"
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
13. Section 124A is formulated on "No Fault Liability". It provides that 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 has been killed is entitled for compensation. This Court in the case of Sri Mahaboob Sab and Smt. Mahaboob Jaan Vs. Union of India (UOI) South Western Railways1, wherein at paragraph No.17 it is held as under:
"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."1
(2010) 4 KCCR 2536
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
14. During the course of cross-examination, A.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased has admitted that the deceased left home on 11.11.2008 at 6.45 in the morning along with two others to Nalwar to see a bride for his relative. The incident occurred while the deceased was returning to Raichur from Nalwar. She admitted that they have not filed the ticket before the Tribunal and ticket is with the police. A.W.2-Mohammed Khashim Sab who is the father-in-law of the deceased has stated that his brother purchased ticket for three people, but not produced the same before the Tribunal. A.W.3 -G.S.Urukundappa working as SI/GRP at Raichur Railway Police Station admitted that while conducting inquest report on 12.11.2008 nobody has produced the ticket and that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. He admitted that based on the memo of Dy.SS/Raichur, he started investigating the matter and based on the message of Station Master came to the conclusion that the deceased fell down from the train.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
15. Therefore, in this regard, upon considering the evidence of the claimants and respondent, just because, the claimants have not produced the journey ticket, it cannot be said that the deceased was not the bonafide passenger. Therefore, under these circumstances, it cannot be expected from the claimants to retain the journey ticket after accident occurs. But it is the responsibility of the railways to produce the Daily Ticket Collection Register to prove that as to how many passengers have purchased the ticket and how many passengers actually travelled in the train. The railways are maintaining Daily Ticket Collection Register. It is worthwhile to refer paragraph No.18 in the case of Sri Mahaboob Sab (stated supra), which reads as under:
"18. Mr. Raghupathy learned Counsel appearing for respondents would contend that initial burden by claimants have not been discharged to demonstrate that deceased was travelling as a valid passenger by holding a valid ticket. Though this argument looks attractive, it cannot be accepted for simple and obvious reason
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 that in a situation where a person who falls from train and suffers multiple injuries and is shifted to an hospital on an emergent basis cannot be expected to retain the ticket, which he would have purchased and to further expect the claimants who are none other than parents of deceased to establish this fact that in fact deceased had purchased the ticket. On the other hand, it is necessary to observe at this Juncture that a person who is travelling in a train is deemed to have been purchased the ticket and is travelling as a valid passenger until and unless it is rebutted by respondent to show otherwise. In the absence of this fact, this Court cannot accept the arguments of learned Counsel appearing for respondent. In view of the above finding, order of Tribunal on issue Nos. 1 and 2 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Rules 6 to 13 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, stipulates as follows:
"6. Duties of Station Superintendent-The Station Superintendent, on receipt of an information about the occurrence of an untoward incident under rule 3, shall,-
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
(i) make necessary entries to this effect in the station diary;
(ii) arrange for medical assistance to the injured passengers;
(iii) make out a brief report in respect of spot of the untoward incident and forward copies thereof to the Divisional Office, Zonal Railways, police and [Divisional Security Commissioner] of the Force.
7. Conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Force-
(1) On receipt of information under Rule 6, an officer of the Force, [***] shall carry out the investigation and shall,-
(i) obtain copies of the inquest report, post mortem report and Jama Talashi report from the police investigating the incident
(ii) obtain a copy of the report specified under clause
(iii) obtain information about the untoward incident in Form-2;
(iv)record statement of additional witnesses, if so required (v) collect any other evidence
required by the circumstances of the case.
(2) The officer of the Force, [shall complete the investigation within sixty days and] submit a report to the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 [authority] specified under sub-rule (2) of rule 10.
8. Conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Police-
(1) The police on receipt of the report under clause (iii) of rule 6, shall immediately initiate investigation and prepare inquest report or injury report in accordance with the procedure laid down in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
(2) After preparation of report, as mentioned in sub-rule (1), the police shall immediately give clearance certificate for movement of trains from the site of incident so that minimum delay is caused in restoration of train movement.
9. The injured and the next of kin of the deceased passenger may submit evidence and assist police and Force- The injured and the next of kin of the deceased passengers may submit all the relevant evidence before the Police and assist the Police and the Force to complete the investigation.
10. Forwarding of investigation report by the Police and the Force-
(1) The police on completion of the investigation, shall forward the report thereof to the Magistrate, as required
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
(2) The officer of the Force shall forward the report prepared under sub-rule (2) of rule 7 to the [***] Divisional Security Commissioner of the Force.
(3) The Divisional Security Commissioner shall submit the report to Divisional Railway Manager within fifteen days of the receipt of report of investigation from officer of the force.
11. Action on the report by the Divisional Railway Manager-
(1) The Divisional Railway Manager, on receipt of the report, [mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 10 shall examine the same within fifteen days. (2) When, on examination, Divisional Railway Manager is satisfied that the investigation is complete, he shall pass an order accepting the said report.
(3) If the Divisional Railway Manager has reason to believe that some more inquiry is required in the matter, it shall refer the same back for investigation to the officer of the Force along with his observations for further investigation.
(4) On receipt of a reference under sub-rule (3), the officer of the Force shall investigate the matter further
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 and submit the report immediately to the Divisional Railway Manager.
12. Communication of order -
Final orders passed on the report by the Divisional Railway Manager shall be communicated to the Station Superintendent who shall maintain the records and make necessary entries in the Station Diary to this effect.
13. Sending report to claim office- (1) The investigation report along with acceptance of Divisional Railway Manager thereon shall be sent within fifteen days to the administrative in- charge of the claim office of the Zonal Railway where the incident has occurred.
(2) The administrative in-charge of claim office of the Zonal Railway who has received the notice of claim for that particular incident shall arrange to collect the report from the claim office of Railway where the incident has occurred and submit the same to the concerned bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal along with the Written Statement.]"
17. Clause (c) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 defines "untoward incident" as under:
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 "Clause (c) of Section 123 - "untoward incident" means--
(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity;
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or"
18. Sub-Section (2) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 reads as under:
"Sub-section (2)of Section 123 - the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
19. Clause (a) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 defines "accident" as, an accident of the nature described in Section 124.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
20. Section 124 of Railways Act, 1989 defines "Extent of liability", which reads as under:
"124. Extent of liability- When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, 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 has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in 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 a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section "passenger" includes a railway servant on duty."
21. Therefore, upon reading of Sections 123, 124 and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, it is based on
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 "No Fault Liability" on the part of the passenger. Whether or not there is any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or suffered loss or killed in the accident, then the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to the passengers who suffered injuries or death occurred in such an untoward incident.
22. It is not possible for the claimants to examine a person as they have witnessed that the deceased has purchased tickets and also it is not possible for the claimants to examine a person as eye witness to the incident. If any passenger accompanied his friend or relative, then it may be possible to examine that person as eye witness. But whereas a passenger travels alone along with other stranger passenger, then after the incident and when the claim petition is filed before the Tribunal, it is not possible for the claimant to examine any person as witness to the incident. It is not expected in this regard
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 that the claimants to examine any person as eye witness. Expectation by the railway administration that the claimants should examine eye witness is ridicule on the part of the railway administration and it is wholly unwarranted. What the Railway Department prepares report by the Divisional Railway Manager as stated above certain duties are prescribed on the railway authorities as per Rules 6 to 13 of Rules, 2003 (stated supra).
23. Rules 6 to 13 as above stated impose bounden duty on the officials of railway authorities to perform their duties and discharge their functions when an untoward incident occurs. Therefore, what the railway authorities could do and ought to perform their functions, it cannot be expected from the claimants' side. Therefore, it is not a rivers burden on the claimants to prove each and every minute aspect of the accident. But the Tribunal has committed error by expecting evidence from the claimants, which the railway authorities ought to do.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
24. When the respondent-Railway has taken the contention that the claimant has not produced the railway ticket, but certain duties are cast on the Railway as per Rule 4 of Rules, 2003.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others2, wherein at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 held as under:
"9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of provisions of the Railways Act, in particular Chapter XIII which deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123 (c) defines "untoward incident". As per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers would be an untoward incident. As per Section 124A, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of untoward incident. When in the course of working of 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 as such, would entitle a passenger who 2 (2023) 6 SCR 329
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 has been injured or died. The claim can be maintained to recover the damages, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law the Railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed for such untoward incident. By the explanation of the said Section clarifying about 'passenger', it would include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
10. This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 and the judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India,2014 scc OnLine Del 101 Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828 and also considered the judgement of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India,(2019)12 SCC 391 and in para 29 concluded as thus-
"We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that 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
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 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."
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani Devi Vs. Union of India3 at paragraph No.13 held as under:
"13. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on a judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Rani Devi v. Union of India reported in 2018 ACJ 2681 wherein it is held that:
Railways Act, 1989, Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A-Untoward
incident -- Negligence of victim -- Passenger fell down while boarding train at platform and sustained fatal injuries -- Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the grounds that deceased was not a bona fide passenger as ticket was not 3 2017 SCC Online Del 10274
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 recovered from him but was later produced by claimant and the train in question departed before the occurrence of the incident Section 124-A is based on the principle of no fault liability and compensation cannot be denied on the ground that deceased was negligent and it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault -- Body of the deceased was found on the tracks near platform which proves the accident resulting in the death of deceased -- Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident and Railways is liable"
27. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi4 it is held that mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative to claim that he was a bonafide passenger. At paragraph No.17.4 in the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the above legal position in this regard, which is extracted at paragraph No.17.4 as follows:
"17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured 4 (2019) 3 SCC 572
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 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."
28. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that liability of the Railway is a strict liability as per the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 123 and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, it is specifically provided that compensation has to be granted on account of an untoward incident, even if there is negligence on the part of bonafide passenger. In this regard, I place reliance on
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others5 and Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI)6. It is held that even if the bonafide passenger is guilty of negligence, the compensation has to be granted in this regard. The only way the railway can avoid the liability is to prove that the negligence is not an ordinary negligence, but it is a case of criminal negligence or a case of suicide or self inflicted injury.
29. It is the duty cast on the railway authorities as per the Rules, 2003, mandating the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident. Therefore, it is the duty cast on the railway authorities to produce before the Tribunal the result of investigation as provided under the Rules, 2003 and it could not be expected from the claimants to produce the details of accident. The Rules, 2003, imposes mandatory duty on the railway authorities which the Station Superintendent, Guard, Conductor and 5 (2008) 9 SCC 527 6 (2010) 12 SCC 443
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 Train Ticket Examiner in-charge of the train and forward report to the Magistrate as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the Divisional Security Commissioner of force and then in turn, the Divisional Security Commissioner shall submit the report to the Divisional Railway Manager within fifteen days and then the Divisional Railway Manager shall submit a report as to on what action he has taken and same shall be communicated to the Station Superintendent who shall maintain the records and make necessary entries in the station diary. The said report shall be sent within fifteen days to the administrative in-charge of the Claim Office of the Zonal Railway where the incident has occurred. Therefore, in this regard, various duties are imposed at the various levels of officers of railway authorities as provided under the Rules, 2003, as above stated. Therefore, it is not proper on the Railway Authorities to put entire burden on the claimants to prove the untoward incident.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
30. The accident due to railways and accident due to motor vehicle are two different aspects, which has to be considered under two different statutes. There is restriction to enter the railway premises including the railway station and generally the public are not allowed unless having valid ticket or platform ticket. The passengers can travel after purchasing journey ticket. In case, the claimants being legal representatives of the deceased are far away from the places and they could not know what is happening in the railway premises/track, therefore, it cannot be expected the details of untoward incident from the claimants and also the claimants are not expected to give minor details regarding untoward incident. Therefore, in this background, the statutory mandatory provisions are made against various levels of officers of the railway authorities to conduct investigation as per Rules, 2003 and submit the report. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo Vs.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 General Manager, South-East Central Railways7 wherein at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 held as follows:
"4. Though Rule 27 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") mandates the Railway Authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident, admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before RCT on 27-2-2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23-4-2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased de-trained from the moving train at D Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railways was accepted by RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal i.e. FAO No. 535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of RCT. The High Court has dismissed the same by cryptic and non-speaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award and the reasons assigned in support of the same, do not warrant any interference.7
(2019) 12 SCC 387
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
5. It is in these circumstances, the appellants are before us in these proceedings via Article 136 of the Constitution. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which warrants payment of compensation whenever an untoward incident occurs whether or not such an incident has occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. We are informed that, at the material time, compensation payable under the said provision was Rs.4 lakhs."
31. The provisions under the railway statutes as above discussed insofar as awarding compensation on the provisions used such as bonafide passenger, untoward incident, self inflicted injury are to be liberally construed and interpreted. The provisions under the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and its
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 allied Rules, where compensation is to be granted towards untoward incident are made as a beneficial and welfare statutes. The beneficial or welfare statute should be construed liberally and interpreted in its true spirit, but not by adopting rigid or a strict interpretation. Therefore, the object should be given to substantial justice to the victims of Railway accident, but not by approaching technicalities. In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar's case wherein at paragraph No.12 it is held as under:
"12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen , Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 Others, Lalappa Lingappa and Others s. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., S.M. Nilajkar and others Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, etc.,"
32. Therefore, applying the principles of law as discussed above as per statute and as per authoritative judicial pronouncement as above discussed, in the present case, A.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased has stated that the deceased left the house at 6.45 in the morning in order to go to Nalwar and later got to know that her husband died in railway accident.
33. On behalf of the applicants, 1st applicant who is the wife of the deceased is examined as A.W.1; Mohammed Khasim Sab who is the father-in-law of the deceased was examined as A.W.2 and Sri G.S.Urukundappa, SI/GRP/Raichur is examined as A.W.3 and got marked the documents as Ex.A10 and Ex.A11 through A.W.3. On behalf of the respondent, one Sri Y.Uma Maheshwar, Head Constable/Guntakal/Guntakal
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 Division is examined as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.
34. Ex.A1 is the copy of UDR No.74/2008 dated 11.11.2008 of Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Raichur, registered based on the message sent by Deputy Station Master/Raichur Railway Police Station to SI/RPF/GRP/RC that "Reported N.P.M. Sri S.K.Babu G.N.2 RC. One male dead body found age 30 years at KM 564/8- 9 near LC Gate No.218 at Raichur". Para 11 and panchas opinion in para 17 of inquest report -Ex.A3 narrates the cause of the incident as "We the panchas are of the unanimous opinion that the deceased while travelling in some running train has fallen down and got grievously injured on the head, blood has oozed out and has expired on the spot itself". Ex.A2 is the post mortem report wherein the concerned doctor has concluded the cause of death of the deceased "is due to impact of slow force over head resulting in laceration of brain leading to cardio- pulmonary failure". Ex.A11 is the police final report of
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 Railway Police Station, Raichur, wherein it is concluded that the death of deceased is "accidental death".
35. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasonings given by the Railway Claims Tribunal is grossly incorrect and untenable on the eye of law. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be set aside.
36. The post mortem report states that the cause of death of the deceased is due to "is due to impact of slow force over head resulting in laceration of brain leading to cardio-pulmonary failure". Therefore, as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (the date of accident is 11.11.2008) is awarded along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others8, 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."
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case the accident was occurred in the year 2003 and awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest from the date of petition till the date of realization and also it is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the claimant is entitled to maximum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the 8 (2023) 6 SCR 329
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 present case also, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization is awarded to the claimants and if this figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants/claimants are entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
39. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment dated 24.12.2013 passed in claim application No.O.A II U 90/2009 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, is set aside.
(iii) The claimants being wife, son, daughter, father and mother of the deceased are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.,
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16278 MFA No. 3318 of 2014 from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iv) It is also made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the claimant is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the present case also, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization is awarded to the claimants and if this figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants/claimants are entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
(v) No order as to costs.
(vi) Draw award accordingly.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
PB