Karnataka High Court
Ishwaragouda Danappagouda Patil vs Union Of India on 8 December, 2017
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
M.F.A.No.20652/2009
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
M.F.A. NO.20652/2009 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. ISHWARAGOUDA DANAPPAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BALLARAWAD, TQ: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. ANDANAGOUDA DANAPPAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BALLARAWAD, TQ: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
3. SMT.DEVAMMA W/O KALAKAPPA SHILLIN,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O SHIRAWAR,
TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR.
4. SMT.AKKAMAHADEVI
W/O VIRUPAXAPPA SHILLIN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O ALAVANDI,
TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.B.G.INDI, ADV. FOR
SRI.K.L.PATIL, ADV.)
M.F.A.No.20652/2009
:2:
AND:
UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI-58020,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.AJAY U PATIL, ADV.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 19.11.2008 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE RAILWAY ACT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the arguments from learned counsel for both sides.
2. The Original Application No.15/2004 of the appellants filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (henceforth referred to as the 'Tribunal', for brevity) under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking for compensation came to be dismissed by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 19.11.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants, who were the applicants in the Tribunal, have preferred this M.F.A.No.20652/2009 :3: appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
3. The contention of the appellants as well the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence led before it in its proper perspective and that it led to an erroneous finding to hold that the incident was due to self-inflicted injury of the deceased, which is not correct.
4. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the respondent submitted that the evidence led before the Tribunal clearly demonstrate that the deceased tried to alight from a running train, as such, injury to him was self-inflicted injury. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition.
5. The summary of the case of the appellants in the Tribunal was that, one Sri.Danappa Gowda, who is said to be the father of the applicants, was traveling on 01.05.2003 from Gadag to Shishuvinahalli in train No.311 M.F.A.No.20652/2009 :4: as a bonafide passenger and had purchased journey ticket. When the train was reaching Shishuvinahalli Railway Station, due to the sudden jerk of the train he fell down and sustained injury and died on spot. In order to substantiate their claim, the claimants got examined three witnesses as AW.1 to AW.3 and got marked documents from Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the respondent- Railway Authorities, one witness was examined as RW.1.
6. AW.1 and AW.2 were the applicant Nos.1 and 2 in the Tribunal, who admittedly are not the eyewitnesses, but both of them have stated that, while the deceased was preparing to get down at his destination in Railway Station, but due to the sudden jerk he fell down from the train. AW.3 claiming himself to be an eyewitness to the incident has supported the case of the applicants and stated that he was standing behind the deceased Danappa Gowda and that since the train moved with a jerk Danappa Gowda slipped and fell down.
M.F.A.No.20652/2009:5:
It is interesting to note that the evidence of these witness could not be shaken in their cross-examination done by the respondent. In the cross-examination of AW.1, the witness once again reiterated that, before the train could come to stop, due to jerk the deceased fell down. The said statement was not denied further by the respondent. Similarly, the evidence of AW.2 to the same effect has also not been denied in the cross-examination of AW.2. Though AW.1 and AW.2 are hearsay witnesses, it is not in dispute that AW.3 is an eyewitness to the incident. He has given an account clearly stating that he has witnessed the incident and that due to the jerk of the train the deceased Danappa Gowda fell down. This aspect the Tribunal has not appreciated in its proper perspective. On the other hand, had proceeded on the motion that the said AW.3 had given a statement before the police and the said statement was not brought to the notice of the Court by AW.3, as such, it totally disbelieved the evidence of AW.3. The said reasoning of the Tribunal is not acceptable. If at M.F.A.No.20652/2009 :6: all the AW.3 had given any such statement before the police, nothing had prevented the respondent to confront the said statement in the cross-examination of AW.3 and to establish that the evidence given by AW.3 was contrary to his previous statement. This attempt was not made by the respondent, as such, the Tribunal assuming itself the role of the respondent body and that too without even confronting the alleged statement of AW.3 said to have been given by him before the police earlier, cannot jump into a conclusion that the evidence of AW.3 given before it was not believable. As such, the finding given by the Tribunal that, though the incident was an untoward incident, it comes under exception of the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is erroneous.
As such, the said finding of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside and it has to be held that the applicants before the Tribunal have established that the death of Danappa Gowda was due to an untoward incident. M.F.A.No.20652/2009 :7:
7. Admittedly, the undisputed fact remains that the said Danappa Gowda was a passenger traveling in the train at the time of the incident having purchased a ticket for his journey. As such, the applicants have fulfilled both the mode of occurrence of untoward incident wherein Danappa Gowda sustained injury and died on the spot and also that deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident.
8. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.2 in the impugned judgment is set aside. Consequently, since the Tribunal has found that the applicants before it were the sole dependants of deceased Danappa Gowda, they are entitled for compensation. Thus, the appellants herein, who were the applicants before the Tribunal, are entitled for compensation which is quantified as per Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. Since the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal only on the ground M.F.A.No.20652/2009 :8: of its finding on issue No.2 holding that it was an self- inflicted injury and has not computed the compensation for which the applicants before it were eligible, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to it to compute the compensation and pass necessary order in that regard. It is made clear that no fresh evidence is required to be led by either side in the matter except addressing their argument regarding the quantum of compensation.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
The judgment in OA No.15/2004 dated 19th November 2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench is set aside. The matter is remanded to the said Tribunal for its fresh disposal confining to the determination of the quantum of compensation in the light of the observation made above. Both the parties herein are directed to appear before the said Tribunal on M.F.A.No.20652/2009 :9: 22.01.2018 without anticipating any fresh notice or summons from the said Tribunal.
Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with lower court records to the said Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sh