Allowed

The Union of India v. Sri. Veeranna

Karnataka HC22 Dec 2020MFA/4911/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal award granting Rs.4,00,000 deemed compensation to claimants of a deceased found dead on railway tracks. The Court held the Tribunal erred by issuing a benefit of doubt based on a cricket analogy without considering that a train ticket was issued after the body was found.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award in OA No. II U 65/2008 is set aside and the claim petition is dismissed; deposit, if any, to be refunded to appellant.

The Union of India Vs Sri. Veeranna — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

MFA.NO.4911/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4911/2011 (RCT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAY MUMBAI CST ... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI VEERANNA S/O. DEVENDRAPPA PANCHAL 51 YEARS

¶13

SMT BASAMMA W/O VEERANNA PANCHAL 44 YEARS

¶14

BOTH RESIDING AT RAJAPUR COLONY NAGPUR VILLAGE GULBARGA ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C. CHANASPUR, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2011 PASSED IN OA II U 65/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,00,000/-.

¶17

MFA.NO.4911/2011

¶18

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

“Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal,

¶22

Bengaluru was justified in holding that death of Arun Kumar was caused while he was traveling in the train as bonafide passenger?” is the question involved in this case.

¶23

On 18.05.2007 at 6.40 hours, the driver of UP DSL No.18719 & 13039 KLMG reported to Gulbarga Railway Station that a male dead body was found between track at KM No.569/0 GR-HQR. Based on that, the FIR was registered in UDR No.38/07 by Police Sub-Inspector, Railway Police Station, Wadi.

¶24

On the basis of the belongings found on

¶25

the dead body, it was identified as that of Arun Kumar the son of the claimants. During the inquest, the claimants allegedly gave statements to the effect

¶26

MFA.NO.4911/2011

¶27

¶28

that Arun Kumar left the house on 17.05.2007 to visit some temple in Nalwar and while returning in the train, he has met with the accident and died. During the inquest, ticket No.19346 – Ex.A10 was allegedly recovered from the dead body.

¶29

The claimants filed claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 123, 124A and 125 of Indian Railways Act 1989 (‘the Railways Act’ for short) claiming that they were the dependants of the deceased – Arun Kumar, he was aged 18 years and sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. They claimed that the accident occurred when he was traveling in the train.

¶30

5. The appellant disputed that Arun Kumar

¶31

was a bona fide passenger and death arose when he was traveling in the train and that was an untoward incident. Before the Tribunal, respondent

¶32

MFA.NO.4911/2011

¶33

¶34

No.1/claimant No.1 was examined as AW.1 and 13 documents were marked. On behalf of the appellant, Subhash Ranjan, the then Assistant Station Master, Nalwar Railway Station was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.

¶35

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties by the impugned award granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Tribunal held that RW.1 claimed that except train No.6530 an express train departing from Nalwar Station at 7:33 hours and passenger train No.546 departing from Nalwar Station at 9:31 hours, there were no other trains and that is a controversy between the parties, however, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the claimants.

¶36

Sri. Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the

¶37

appellant relying on the evidence of RW.1 and Section 124A of the Railways Act submits that the claimants were entitled to compensation only if the victim was

¶38

MFA.NO.4911/2011

¶39

¶40

traveling as bonafide passenger in the train. He further submits that the evidence of RW.1 shows that the ticket relied on by the claimants was issued much later the dead body was traced, therefore, the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he is entitled for benefit of doubt is perverse.

¶41

Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v/s Rina Devi¹ learned counsel for the appellant submits that the burden of proof that the victim was a bona fide passenger was on the claimants and unless that burden was discharged, the onus does not shift to the appellant. He submits that the award is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi’s case, disapproved the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court which were relied upon by the Tribunal.

1 (2019) 3 SCC 572

MFA.NO.4911/2011

Per contra, Sri. Chandrashekar C.

¶46

Chanaspur, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the train ticket relied by the claimants was submitted by the Police only. He further submits that when the dead body was traced on the train track, as per Section 124A of the Railways Act, that ought to be treated as an untoward incident, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation.

¶47

Section 124A of the Railways Act which enables the dependants of the deceased to claim compensation reads as follows:

¶48

“124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident .– When in the course of working of 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

¶49

MFA.NO.4911/2011

¶50

¶51

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:

¶52

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to –

¶53

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

¶54

(b) self-inflicted injury;

¶55

¶56

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

¶57

(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.

¶58

Explanation.– For the purposes of

¶59

this section, “passenger ”

MFA.NO.4911/2011

includes-

(i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.”

¶64

Interpreting the aforesaid provision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 29 of the judgment in Rina Devi’s case referred to Supra held as follows:

¶65

“29. 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 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 .

¶66

MFA.NO.4911/2011

¶67

¶68

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”

¶69

(Emphasis supplied)

¶70

The perusal of the above provisions and the judgment makes it clear that mere presence of the dead body on the Railway premises is not conclusive to hold that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden was on the claimants to prove that deceased was a bona fide railway passenger. To discharge the said burden, the claimants relied on ticket No.19346.

¶71

RW.1 in his evidence deposed that he had issued the said ticket. His evidence that he reported to the duty on that day at 7 hours and that general tickets for the passenger train will be issued only one hour before the arrival time of the train was not controverted. The dead body itself was traced at

¶72

MFA.NO.4911/2011

¶73

¶74

6:40 hours. As already stated RW.1 reported to the duty at 7 hours.

¶75

Relying on Ex.R3 - train movement

¶76

register, he deposed that between odd hours and 11 hours there were only two passenger trains namely train No.6530 an express train which arrived in Nalwar station at 7:21 a.m. and departed at 7:33 a.m., and ordinary passenger train No.546 which arrived at 9:20 a.m., and departed at 9:32 a.m. The claimants did not cross-examine RW.1 denying the aforesaid statements. Therefore, his evidence remained unchallenged.

¶77

The Tribunal without considering evidence on record and the circumstances, dealt with the matter in a very casual manner giving the illustration of the cricket match and saying that in a game of cricket benefit of doubt shall be given to the bats man.

¶78

MFA.NO.4911/2011

¶79

¶80

Since the evidence of RW.1 went

¶81

un-controverted and ticket was issued as per his evidence subsequent to the tracing of the dead body, the Tribunal acted contrary to Section 124A of the Railways Act and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi’s case in holding that Arun Kumar was a bonafide passenger and in awarding the compensation. Therefore, the award is unsustainable.

¶82

The appeal is allowed. The impugned award in OA No.II U 65/2008 is hereby set aside. The claim petition of the respondents is dismissed.

¶83

The amount in deposit if any, shall be refunded to the appellant.

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

The Union of India v. Sri. Veeranna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. Sri. Veeranna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Ammayyamma Vs Smt.R.Rajeshwari

H D Sudheendra Rao Vs M/S N G E F Ltd.

Sri. Malatesh Vs Sri. Ravikumar

Biliyappa Gowda Vs M/S Konark Hiring Service

Shahrukh Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

The Manager Vs Manjunath