Karnataka High Court
Mrs R Shobha @ Shobha vs Union Of India on 23 April, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16713
MFA No. 4385 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4385 OF 2017 (RCT-)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. R. SHOBHA @ SHOBHA
W/O LATE D. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
2. MASTER RAKSHITH @ RAKSHITH
S/O LATE D. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
3. MASTER R. DEEKSHITH @ DEEKSHITH
S/O LATE D. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
SINCE APPLICANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
THEY ARE REPRESETNED BY THEIR
MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN
R. SHOBHA @ SHOBH, APPLICANT NO.1
Digitally ALL ARE PREVIOUSLY RESIDENT OF
signed by NO.2572, 4TH CROSS,
RAMYA D
HOSABANADEKERE,
Location:
HIGH MYSORE.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.1781,
5TH CROSS, MARUTHI TENT ROAD,
JANATA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. TANVEER PASHA A S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESETNED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16713
MFA No. 4385 of 2017
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS,
HUBALI - 580 020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SATHISH KUMAR N., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED:03.03.2017
PASSED IN OA II U 096/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM APPLICATION AND COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is posted for Admission and the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. The claimants have preferred this appeal questioning the judgment dated 03.03.2017 passed in Claim Application No.O.A. II U 096/2013 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, (Bangalore Bench), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application of the claimants on the reason that the deceased was not a bona-fide purchaser and had travelled without a valid ticket.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017
3. The case of the claimants is that the deceased D. Ravi, on 29.09.2012 at 11:45 p.m., was travelling from Bangalore to Mysore in a passenger train and while boarding the train at Bangalore Railway Station, accidentally, slipped from the train, due to which, the deceased had sustained fatal injuries and died in the hospital on 05.10.2012. The application filed by the claimants was dismissed on the ground that the claimants have not produced the journey ticket of the deceased proving that he was a bona-fide passenger.
4. A.W.1-wife of the deceased has given evidence that the deceased purchased the ticket and while boarding the train at Bangalore Railway Station to go to Mysore, due to heavy crowd, accidentally, slipped and fell down from the train. In the evidence on record, it is proved that immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and from there, he was taken to NIMHANS, Bangalore, and from therefore, the deceased was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore for higher treatment, but the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 05.10.2012. During this process, the ticket might have been lost. The railway authorities are -4- NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017 maintaining daily ticket collection Register and it is the burden on the respondent railway authorities to produce the evidence showing as to how many tickets were sold out, and how many passengers had traveled, as they have men and machinery.
5. In order to prove the case, on behalf of claimants, the wife of deceased herself was examined as A.W.1 and marked the documents as per Exs.A.1 to A.12. The respondent-railway authorities have marked Ex.R.1-DRM report. The documents produced as per FIR, Complaint, inquest report, post mortem report, wound certificate, statement of witnesses and DRM report would prove that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the railway accident and died.
6. 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 1 (2024) 9 SCC 656 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017 which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the 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."
7. 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:
22010 SCC OnLine Kar 5098 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017 "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 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."
8. 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 3 AIR 2018 SC 2362 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017 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), 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 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017 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 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017 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 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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017 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 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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017 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."
9. As per Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited supra the compensation is to be payable on the principle of strict liability and the deceased is held to be a bona-fide passenger in the train. Therefore, the claimants have proved their claim as discussed above and are entitled for
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017 compensation from the respondent-railway authorities.
Therefore, the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others4, at paragraph No.23, has 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."
11. 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 4 (2023) 6 SCR 329
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017 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/-.
12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed;
(ii) The impugned judgment dated 03.03.2017 passed in Claim Application No.O.A. II U 096/2013 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, (Bangalore Bench), Bangalore, is hereby set aside;
(iii) Consequently, the claim application of the appellants/claimants is allowed. The claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16713 MFA No. 4385 of 2017
(iv) The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondent-Railway authorities, within a period of eight weeks;
(v) No order as to costs.
(vi) Draw the decree accordingly.
(vii) Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the Railway Claims Tribunal, (Bangalore Bench) Bench, forthwith.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT:SK