Karnataka High Court
Smt. Devaki W/O Ramappa Mutagi vs The Union Of India on 11 March, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad, Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB
MFA No. 103744 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103744 OF 2024 (RAIL)
BETWEEN:
SMT. DEVAKI W/O. RAMAPPA MUTAGI
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MOSALE KARANJI, HUKKERI-591 309,
TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUNANDA P.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
SECUNDERABAD-500003.
VISHAL ...RESPONDENT
NINGAPPA (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, CGSC)
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL SECTION 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT 1987,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA PRAYING TO, THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.02.2024
DHARWAD BENCH
IN OA (II U)/SBC/0030/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
MEMBER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BRANCH
MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND
GRANTING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,00,000/- WITH INTEREST
AT THE RATE OF 9% PA FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION TILL
ITS REALIZATION TO THE APPELLANT FROM THE RESPONDENT
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB
MFA No. 103744 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 02.02.2024 passed in Claim Application No.OA(II U)/SBC/0030/2020 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for brevity) where under the claim petition came to be dismissed.
2. The appellant and her husband late -Ramappa filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 read with Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of Railways Act, 1989.
3. The facts leading to filing of claim petition are that the son of the appellant namely Sri Parashuram S/o Ramappa Mutagi aged about 28 years, on 06.10.2018 while traveling as bonafide passenger of an unknown train from Tirupathi to Ghataprabha, on the strength of a valid second class railway journey ticket bearing No.19305600 has -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR wrongly boarded the train from Tirupathi to Vijayavada. During the course of journey, due to jerk of the train, he had accidentally fell down from the running train between Kavali and Tettu at RKM No.237/6-8 sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Claimant No.2 who is appellant herein has been examined as applicant witness No.1 and she got marked documents as Ex. A1 to A11.
4. The DRM's report has been placed on record wherein it is stated as under:
"The journey ticket secured by the GRP/Kavali in inquest is meant for the journey from Tirupathi to Ghataprabha which is not valid for the travel on main line from Tirupathi towards Vijayawada. No valid journey ticket was found in possession of the deceased during the joint observation done by GRP & RPF, Hence, the deceased is not a bonafide passenger."
5. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues;
i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR
ii) Whether there was any untoward incident as defined under the provisions of section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989?
iii) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?
iv) Whether the applicants are entitled for any relief and interest as prayed for in the application?
The Tribunal having heard the learned counsel for the claimant and appreciating the evidence on record has answered Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the negative and Issue No.3 does not survive for consideration and dismissed the claim petition by the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the same, claimant No.2 has filed the present appeal. Claimant No.1 stated to have died and his death certificate has been produced with the appeal memo.
6. Heard Smt.Sunanda P Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. B. Kanavi, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was not bona fide passenger and his death in an untoward incident -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR has not been proved by leading cogent evidence. The Tribunal has suspected the journey ticket bearing No.19305600 found at the time of inquest mahazar in the clothes worn by the deceased. The said ticket was not valid to travel from Tirupathi to Vijayawad. The Tribunal has also considered that the claimants have not examined any of the co- passenger in the train to establish the fact that the deceased fell down from the train due to jerk in the train and died.
8. The fact that the dead body of the deceased was found by the side of railway track between Kavali and tettu at RKM No.237/6-8. The FIR No.59 of 2018 has been registered in Kavali Police Station under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and it is registered on 07.10.2018 at 10.30 a.m. The said FIR is registered on the report dated 07.10.2018 filed by one Smt.Nagamalleshwari, Railway Staff. The spot mahazar has been conducted in the said spot, wherein it is noted that the dead body is of unknown person, aged about 30 years. While conducting inquest mahazar, the railway ticket was found in the cloths worn by the deceased. The inquest mahazar is at Ex.A3. The final report filed by PSI, Kavali Police Station -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR which is at Ex.A4 indicate that the death of the deceased is accidental death. The post mortem report -Ex.A5 indicates that the cause of death is due to multiple injuries sustained. Ex-A6 is the death certificate of the deceased wherein place of death is mentioned as Tettu Railway Station, Tettu Mocheria, Gudluru, Praksam, Andra Pradesh-523291.
9. The journey ticket found in the cloths of the deceased and certified copy of the same produced which is at Ex.A-10 indicate that time of issuance of ticket is 16.50 hours on 06.10.2018, the place of issue for the said ticket is Tirupathi railway station. The said ticket is for the journey from Tirupathi to Ghataprabha and fare paid is Rs.210/-. On the next day of issue of the said ticket i.e., on 07.10.2015 the dead body of the deceased was found by the side of railway track between Kavali and Tettu at RKM No.237/6-8. The FIR has been registered at 10.30 a.m. on 07.10.2018. The said aspect indicates that during night hours on 06.10.2018 and early hours on 07.10.2018. The deceased might have fell from the railway and died. The distance between Tirupathi and the place where the dead body of the -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR deceased was found was about 185 kilometres. The deceased was to travel from Tirupathi to Ghataprabha. It is the case of claimants is that the deceased boarded a wrong train and in the said wrong train he fell down due to jerk of the train, accidentally and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The deceased, as per ration card Ex.A9 is the resident of Hukkeri, Belagavi. The decided has taken railway ticket to travel from Tirupathi to Ghataprabha to reach his place Hukkeri in Belagavi District. The dead body of the deceased is found at the distance of 185 kilometres from Tirupathi towards Vijayawada itself indicate that the deceased has boarded a wrong train and during the journey he fell down from the train accidentally due to jerk of the train.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajni and another Vs Union of India and another1 has held as under:
"14. Hence, we reaffirm that proceedings under Section 124-A of the Railways Act are not criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statues are governed by the principles of 1 In 2025 INSC 1201 -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR preponderance and probabilities. Once the foundational facts of (i) possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) occurrence of an accidental fall from a train, are established through credible material, the statutory presumption of bona fide travel must operate in favour of the claimant. The Railways, as an instrumentality of the State, cannot defeat such claims by pointing to procedural imperfections in investigation or non-examination of formal witnesses. To hold otherwise would erode the beneficial character of the legislation and convert a social-justice remedy into a forensic obstacle race.
"15. It is therefore declared that where an official railway inquiry or evidentiary record verifies the issuance of a ticket corresponding to the date and route of an untoward incident, such verification shall constitute prima facie proof of bona fide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden on the Railway Administration. The absence of a seizure memo, or the inability of the police to preserve physical evidence, cannot by itself defeat a legitimate claim when the totality of circumstances supports the claimant's version. This principle shall guide all future tribunals and High Courts in construing Section 124-A, so that the statutory right to compensation remains real, accessible, and consonant with the humanitarian purpose of the enactment."-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR
11. Considering the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 124-A of the Railways Act are not criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statutes are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities. The facts narrated above clearly probabalises that the deceased boarded a wrong train and accidentally fell down and died.
12. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to set-forth the relevant provisions of the Railways Act as under:
(I) Section 2(29) of the Railways Act defines "passenger"
as under:
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(29) "passenger" means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket;"
(II) Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines "untoward incident" as under:
"123. Definitions.- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-
Xxxxx
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR [c] 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; or (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 (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers"
13. Section 124-A of the Railways Act is also usefully quoted with respect to compensation on account of untoward incident 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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "passenger" includes-
i) a railway servant on duty; and
ii) 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.
14. Considering the above facts, the first question that arises for our consideration is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased can be said to be a passenger under the Provisions of Railways Act. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act generally defines a passenger to mean a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket. Since we are concerned with compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, the explanation to the said Section with respect to passenger also becomes relevant. As quoted above under the said explanation "passenger" includes a person who has purchased valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers on any date and becomes the victim in an untoward incident. Nowhere the above said two provisions
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR which define "passenger" stipulate that to be a passenger one has to hold a ticket only for any particular train on which the person is to travel. The Section merely requires a valid ticket for traveling by train carrying passengers on any date. The deceased was holding a valid ticket for travelling by train from Tirupathi to Ghataprabha on 06.10.2018. On perusal of the ticket -Ex-A10 only indicates the point of boarding as Tirupathi, destination as Ghataprabha, the date of travel as 06.10.2018 and the cost of Rs.210/-; it does not indicate the train by which the person has to travel. Even assuming for a moment, for argument sake that since the train in which the deceased got in was not going from Tirupathi to Ghataprabha, but was going in an opposite direction from Titupathi towards Vijayawada and therefore, the ticket was not valid for the journey, however, the two above quoted definitions of passenger under the Railways Act do not suggest this. All that is required for availing of the benefit under Section 124-A of the Railways Act is that the person should have purchased a valid ticket for traveling by train carrying passengers on any date and has become a victim of
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR an untoward incident. The deceased had the ticket, but he did not have ticket to travel from Tirupathi towards Vijayawada; but then the fact is that he did not want to go towards Vijayawada but wanted to go to Ghataprabha and had mistakenly boarded the wrong train. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others2 is a beneficial piece of legislation and the provisions have to be interpreted in a liberal and purposive manner, such that the benefits of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act are received by the Claimants and not in a literal or restrictive manner. The deceased in this case purchased a valid ticket. He was in a train; he was traveling by a train carrying passengers on the date mentioned on the ticket and he became victims while on journey. The ingredients of the definition in the explanation (ii) to Section 124-A having been met, in our view, the deceased was passenger holding a valid ticket for traveling by train on 06.10.2018 and as such he was bona fide passenger. 2 In (2008) 9 SCC 527
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR
15. The next question that arises for our consideration is whether the deceased became victim of an untoward incident or not. "Untoward incident" has been defined under Section 123(c) as above. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it is clear that the incident would not fall under Section 123(c)(1) of the Railways Act. That would leave us with the provisions of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, which defines an untoward incident to mean the accidental fall in of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
16. Neither it has been alleged nor it has been proved that this is a case of a suicide or that it was an act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity or due to any natural case or disease. Considering the above aspects, it is clear that the deceased died due to the accidental fall attracting provisions of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.
17. In a similar case, the Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India Vs Reena D/o Kishor Kharwade in First Appeal No.113/2022 with connected matter decided on 11.11.2022 has affirmed award of compensation on the death
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR of one person and injury to another person. In the said case also the deceased and injured boarded a wrong train.
18. Considering the said aspects, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to compensation. The question that arises now is whether the claimants are legal heirs of the deceased. As per ration card -Ex.A9, Ramu Bhimappa Mutagi is father of the deceased -Parashuram. The said Ramu Mutagi is claimant No.1 before the Tribunal. He is not made as a party in this appeal since, he died during pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal. In that regard, the death certificate of claimant No.1 has been produced along with the appeal. Claimant No.2, Devaki Ramu Mutagi, is the sole appellant in the present appeal. As per the said ration card -Ex.A9, she is the wife of Ramu Mutagi and mother of deceased -Parashuram Mutagi. Ex.A8 is copy of the Aadhar card of Devaki Ramu Mutagi indicates that she is described as the wife of Ramu Mutagi. The Family Tree is at Ex.A11 and it is issued by Village Administrative Officer, Hukkeri wherein deceased -Parashuram has been shown as the son of Ramu Mutagi and Devaki Ramu Mutagi. The said deceased -
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR Parashuram was not married. Therefore, claimant No.2 - Devaki Mutagi, who is appellant herein, is now the sole legal heir of deceased -Parashuram Ramu Mutagi.
19. Considering the said aspect, the appellant - claimant No.2 is entitled for compensation for the death of deceased - Parashuram in the accident. As per Rule 3(1) of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries has been specified in the schedule. The compensation for death is provided in part-I, is Rs.8,00,000/. Considering the said aspect, the appellate -claimant No.2 is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the accident till realisation.
20. Considering all the above aspects, the appeal deserves to be allowed. In the result of the following ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3918-DB MFA No. 103744 of 2024 HC-KAR
ii) The impugned judgment dated 02.02.2024 passed in Claim Application No.OA(II U)/SBC/0030/2020 by the Tribunal is set aside.
iii) The claim petition filed by the appellant before the claim tribunal stands allowed.
iv) The appellant/claimant No.2 is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% P.A from the date of the accident till realisation.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP CT:VH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5