Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shruthi @ Drakshayani vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
MFA No. 6854 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6854 OF 2018 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHRUTHI @ DRAKSHAYANI
W/O LATE RAJA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
2. KUMARI JYOTHI
D/O LATE RAJA,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
MINOR,
3. KUMARI ANKITH
Digitally signed D/O LATE RAJA,
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
Location: HIGH MINOR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
[APPLICANTS No.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
AND HENCE, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN, APPELLANT NO.1
SMT.SHRUTHI @ DRAKSHAYANI]
R/AT NO.110, AMEER AHMED COLONY
NEAR RAILWAY STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
MFA No. 6854 of 2018
NOW AT BELLARY CAMP BACKSIDE,
BIRUR TOWN AT AND POST-577116
KADUR TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE
4. SMT. VIJAYA
W/O ANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
5. SRI. ANNAPPA
S/O ANTHONIPPA @ VIGNASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
APPELLANTS 4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT NO.726, AMEER AHAMED COLONY
NEAR RAILWAY STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
KARNATAKA STATE
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAJA SUBRAHMANYA BHAT B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAY VENUGOPAL, CGC)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23 OF THE RCT ACT, 1987,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.12.2017
PASSED ON OA. II U 2010/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:41943
MFA No. 6854 of 2018
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This MFA is filed challenging the dismissal order dated 20.12.2017 passed in OA II U 210/2013 by the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 19.07.2011 when the deceased was traveling from Bengaluru to Shivamogga in the train along with his brother - Francis in order to return back to their native place at Shivamogga, both of them have purchased the ticket and boarded the general compartment on train No.16201. When the train was between Gollahalli and Doddabale railway station, near RKM No.032/100-200, the deceased is alleged to have -4- NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018 accidentally fallen down from the running train due to jolt and jerk and he grievous head injury and died on the spot. The brother of the deceased who was traveling with him saw him falling and shouted and other co-passengers caused the train to stop. On alighting from the train which stopped at a distance of about 100 meters, his brother saw him dead. Hence, the claimants made the claim before the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent appeared and filed the written statement denying that he was not a bonafide passenger at the relevant time of the aforesaid incident. It is case of suspicious death and not an untoward incident. It is also contended that deceased became a victim of his own criminal act and careless attitude. Hence, it is very clear that the deceased was not traveled in the said train bearing No.16201. Hence, the claimants have not entitled for any compensation.
5. The Tribunal framed the four Issues and 1st applicant who is the wife of the deceased examined as -5- NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018 AW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.A1 to A11. The respondent-Railways did not adduce any oral evidence, but only produced the DRM's investigation report which is marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal, on perusal of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record held that no doubt that the body was found lying near the track between the upline and the down line of Gollahalli and Doddabale railway station as the same is clear from the message given to the GRP by SM/YPR on 19.07.2011 at 15.00 hours. On close scrutiny of the document, it is seen that the keyman reported that he saw the body lying by the side of the track, whereas as per the deposition of AW1, brother of the deceased was traveling along with the deceased whose statement was recorded and same is marked as Ex.A4. In the said statement, Francis, brother of the deceased has stated that he had purchased the ticket for himself and for the deceased as well and had handed over the ticket to the deceased. He also stated that they traveled by train No.16201 - Intercity Express and the deceased had accidentally fell from the train. The -6- NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018 Tribunal taking into note of the same held that the said Francis who was accompanying the deceased was not examined before this Tribunal as his evidence would have been very vital for the purpose of proving this incident as an untoward incident. The said Francis who was an eye- witness to the incident is none other than the younger brother of the deceased. The reasons for not getting him examined as witness in this case by the applicants is quite baffling. The reason for not keeping him examined as witness in this case by the applicants, no explanation on the part of the claimants. And there was no information available on record to show that the train was stopped after the alleged incident. The police have drawn the inquest at the spot in the presence of the Francis. According to AW1, statement of Francis was marked as Ex.A4 wherein it discloses that Francis had purchased the ticket and handed over the same to the deceased. Then, if the inquest was drawn almost immediately and Francis was present at that time, how was the ticket not recovered from the body. Hence, the Tribunal comes to -7- NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018 the conclusion that the incident did not occur on account of fall from train, but was due to some other reasons. Perhaps, while deceased and his brother were walking close to the track unaware of movement of train, the deceased might have come in contact with a moving train resulting in sustaining injuries and death. Hence, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the very claim made by the claimants is suspicious and dismissed the claim petition.
6. The counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim petition and failed to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. His contention is that the victim and his brother boarded the train at about 1.30 p.m. from Bengaluru and not specified the train number which can be seen from the statement at Ex.A4. It was also produced by the respondent and induction of the train number was by the respondent. In the final report it was concluded that death of the victim -8- NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018 was due to accidental fall from the moving train. Inspite of it, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion the deceased was not a bonafide passenger hence, the very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that when the train number is specifically mentioned and the said train departures Bengaluru only at 4.30 p.m., it is clear that either the deceased or his brother traveled in the said train and only colluding with the police, created the document and made the claim. The counsel would submit that when the train departures at 4.30 p.m., the question of lying body at 3.00 p.m. and recovered the same and conducted the inquest prior to the departure of the train does not arise. Thus, the same is very clear that a fraudulent claim is made before the Tribunal and the same has been noticed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also made an observation that even if the brother of the deceased was traveled along with the deceased ought to have been -9- NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018 examined him but not examined and if he had been examined, real truth would have been come out and hence, he was not examined with an intention to make the wrongful claim. The Tribunal also assigned the reason while rejecting the claim petition and hence, it does not requires any interference.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, the point that would arise for the consideration of this ct is:
Whether the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and not traveled in the said train and the death is not on account of untoward incident?
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that on 19.07.2011, the deceased - Raja traveled along with his brother - Francis
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018 and the deceased accidentally fell down from the moving train and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries between Gollahalli and Doddabale railway station at 15.00 hours. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the intercity train No.16201 starts from Bengaluru at 4.30 p.m passes the spot of the alleged incident at 7.00 p.m and not at 3.00 p.m. as claimed by the claimants and thus, the very claim is doubtful. No doubt, the wife of the deceased has been examined as AW1 before the Tribunal and AW1 is only a hearsay witness who speaks about the incident only on the document as well as the oral evidence.
10. In the cross-examination of AW1 she categorically deposed that on the date of incident, her husband along with his brother had gone for painting work and both of them left Bengaluru at about 7.00 p.m. and she came to know about the incident but she did not go to the spot and her brother-in-law was at the spot and she also did not enquire as how the incident has occurred and
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018 also she did not remember the date when her statement was recorded by the police. The witness denies the suggestion that her husband at no point of time had travelled with is brother -Francis at train No.16201 and also denies the suggestion that by colluding with the police, the said claim was made.
11. It is also important to note that the respondent has not examined any of the witnesses except marking DRM report at Ex.R1. On perusal of Ex.A1 it is clear that the incident was taken place at the distance of 27 k.m., from Yashwanthpur police station and information was received at 15.05 hours and information was also sent on the very same day at 15.30 hours. It is also important to note that keyman has sent the information as per Ex.A2 and same was received at 15.05 hours and FIR was registered. The inquest also conducted as per Ex.A3 and no doubt, the train number is mentioned as in the inquest as 16201 - Bengaluru to Hubli intercity express.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018
12. The brother of the deceased statement was also recorded as per Ex.A4 wherein he categorically says that both of them went to railway station at 1.40 p.m. and travelled in the train and rightly pointed out by the respondent that nowhere in his statement, train number is mentioned. So also Ex.A5 is the statement of keyman of the railway department wherein he deposed that the deceased fell down accidentally from the train No.16201 and also he categorically says that the brother of the deceased only gave the name of the deceased as Raja and both of them were travelling in the said train and the deceased had accidentally fell down. Other statement Ex.A6 is of the wife of the deceased and in her statement, there is no material statement. However, taking into note of Ex.A7 - PM report it is clear that death is due to multiple injuries sustained.
13. It is important to note that when the keyman of the railway department intimated the death immediately and when the claimants as well as the brother of the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018 deceased who was travelling in the train have categorically stated that at 1.40 p.m., they left Bengaluru to go to Shivamogga and keyman also given the details stating that Francis only gave the details that both of them were travelling in the train, merely because the train number is mentioned as 16201, same is not at the statement of brother of the deceased but the same is at the statement of the keyman. In the case diary also nothing is placed on record with regard to that who gave the details of train number and if really train number is 16201, which would have been forthcoming in the statement of the brother of the deceased who was travelling along with the deceased. It is also important to note that the said brother has not been examined before the Tribunal but during the cross examination, the statement of brother of the deceased i.e., Ex.A4 was not disputed in the cross-examination AW1 and except relying upon DRM report, the respondent has not placed any cogent evidence before the Tribunal with regard to the fact that the train No.16201 was involved in this accident. Hence, the very contention of the learned
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018 counsel for the respondent that train No.16201 departures from Bengaluru at 16.30 hours cannot be accepted unless a rebuttal evidence is placed before the Court to show that the deceased had travelled in that train and timing is concerned, no cogent evidence is placed. When such being the case, when FIR was registered based on the information given by the keyman to the Station Master immediately after the incident at 15.05 hours and thus, there was no any delay in registering the case and conducting the inquest. When such being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted and Tribunal also failed to consider the document at Ex.A1 as well as statements at Ex.A4 and A5 wherein it is stated that the keyman gave the information to the concerned immediately after the accident and his statement is also very clear that the brother of the deceased only gave the information. Hence, it is clear that he was very much present at the time of the accident and very contention that the brother of the deceased was not travelled along with the deceased cannot be accepted and
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018 after the investigation, police have filed the final report and final report was not marked. However, the Tribunal also while passing the order taken note of the reference of final report and discussed at paragraph 11 of its order with regard to PM report and also investigation that police have filed the final report before the Executive Magistrate, Nelamangala under Section 173 of Cr.P.C wherein also it was concluded that the death was due to accidental fall from moving train. Even though discussed the same but not considered the same by the Tribunal while assigning the reasons and final report also very clear that the deceased fell down from the moving train, hence, an untoward incident was taken place. Having taken all these material available on record, it is very clear that Tribunal has not considered the material available on record in a proper perspective and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, I answer the above point as affirmative.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment dated 20.12.2017 passed in OA II U 210/2013 by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. Consequently, the claim application is allowed.
(iii) The appellants are 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 realization. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41943 MFA No. 6854 of 2018
(iv) The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondent within a period of eight weeks.
(v) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN