Dismissed

The Union of India v. P Kistaiah

Karnataka HC8 Mar 2022MFA/10937/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal by Railways against the Railway Claims Tribunal. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and awarded compensation, rejecting the argument that the body's condition proved the deceased crossed the track improperly.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by Railways was dismissed; the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal allowing compensation was affirmed.

The Union of India Vs P Kistaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

MFA NO.10937 OF 2010 (RCT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

The Union of India, Represented by its General Manager, South Western Railway, Hubli.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri K.Patel Munegowda, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

P Kistaiah,

¶12

Son of Late P Bhoomaiah, Aged about 59 years,

¶13

P.Vijayalaxmi, Wife of P Kistaiah, Aged about 55 years,

¶14

Both are R/at No.401, C Block, Mathrushri Apartment, Behind Apollo Hospital, Old MLA Quarters, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-29.

¶15

…Respondents

¶16

(By Sri S.J.Sanghvi, Advocate)

¶17

This MFA is filed under Section 23 of the RCT Act against the judgment dated 31.08.2010 passed in O.A.No.167/2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, allowing the claim petition for compensation.

¶18

:: 2 ::

¶19

This MFA coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by Railways questioning

¶22

the correctness of the order dated 31.08.2010 passed in O.A.167/2007 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench.

¶23

The respondents are the parents of the deceased by name P.Ramesh. The dead body of P. Ramesh was found cut into two pieces near Nayandahalli Railway Station at KM.No.1/100. The petitioners stated before the tribunal in their claim petition that on 27.12.2006 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased, his father and father’s driver left Hyderabad for Bengaluru in a train. About 4.30 a.m., the train reached Dharmavaram station and

¶24

there the deceased got down for having a cup of tea, while his father and the driver were sleeping inside the coach. Since the train started moving and picked up speed, the deceased could not get

¶25

:: 3 ::

¶26

into the compartment and thus he missed the train

¶27

at Dharmavaram. Only his father and driver reached Bengaluru. Deceased reached Bengaluru by boarding another train bound to Bengaluru and searched for his father and driver, but could not trace them. Then the father and driver returned to Hyderabad on 30.12.2006 under the impression that the deceased might have returned to Hyderabad, but the deceased had not gone back to Hyderabad and therefore they made a complaint to Kachiguda Railway Police on 2.1.2007 and to the Dharmavaram Railway Police Station on 21.1.2007. Dharmavaram Railway Police asked

¶28

the father to enquire in the Railway Police Station at Bengaluru. Accordingly the father came to Bengaluru and when he made enquiries, he was shown the photograph of the deceased. Then the father came to know that his son had been killed in a railway accident. On 3.11.2007, the father received a letter addressed to the deceased. That

¶29

:: 4 ::

¶30

letter was written by one T. Muralidhar requesting the deceased to return the hand loan of Rs.1,000/that the deceased had obtained from him on 28.12.2006. After receipt of this letter, the father contacted Muralidhar and came to know that his son spent a night on 28.12.2006 with him and that on the next day i.e., 29.12.2006, the deceased went to Mysuru by boarding train No.232, Bengaluru – Mysuru passenger. This led to filing of claim petition before the tribunal in connection with death of P.Ramesh.

¶31

The tribunal after conducting enquiry awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondents/claimants with interest and questioning the same the railways has preferred this appeal.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant raised

¶33

two points, firstly that the deceased was not a bonafide purchaser, no railway ticket was found

¶34

:: 5 ::

¶35

and secondly that the body of the deceased was found cut into two pieces on the railway track. If really he was traveling in the train and that he had fallen from the moving the train, it was impossible that the body would come under the wheels. The injuries that would be caused would be of different nature and most probably the deceased might have come under the wheels of the train when he was crossing the railway track. For this reason, the railway is not liable to pay any compensation. In support of his second point of argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamrunnissa Vs. Union of India – (2019) 12 SCC 391. Therefore he argued for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the tribunal.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent argues that the inquest panchanama clearly discloses that body was found on the railway track. AW.2

¶37

:: 6 ::

¶38

Muralidhar has given evidence very clearly that he saw off the deceased at the railway station. He has also stated that the deceased purchased ticket and boarded Bengaluru – Mysuru passenger. His evidence is not assailed and therefore the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the respondents were entitled to claim compensation in connection with the death of their son.

¶39

I have considered the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties. Ex.A.2 is the inquest panchanama. It clearly shows that the dead body was found on the railway track at KM.No.1/100, near Nayandahalli railway station. The dead body was cut into two pieces. So, the death of the deceased in this manner is not disputed even by the railways.

¶40

The first question is whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger. AW.1 is the father of the deceased and his evidence just shows that

¶41

:: 7 ::

¶42

only after receiving the letter from AW.2,

¶43

Muralidhar, he came to know that his son had traveled in a train bound to Mysuru and therefore he suspected that his son could have been killed in a railway accident. The entire case rests on the evidence given by AW.2. The tribunal has believed his evidence to be trust worthy. Given a re-look to the evidence of AW.2, he has stated that the deceased Ramesh was his friend and that the latter visited his room where he was staying on 28.12.2006. The deceased stayed over night there. AW.2 has stated what the deceased told him about missing the train at Dharmavaram and coming over to Bengaluru city and searching for his father and car driver. He has further stated that the deceased requested him to pay Rs.1,000/as on the next day he wanted to go to Mysuru. Therefore he gave Rs.1,000/- to the deceased and then took him to railway station in the morning of 29.12.2006 to see him off at the railway station.

¶44

:: 8 ::

¶45

He further stated that since the deceased did not

¶46

contact him for many months, he wrote a letter to him requesting him to repay Rs.1,000/-. Thereafter the father of the deceased met and told about the death of his son in a train accident and asked him as to what happened. In the crossexamination he has clearly answered that on 29.12.2006, he dropped the deceased at 9.45 hours in the railway station, that the deceased himself purchased a ticket for going to Mysuru and a platform ticket for him. He has also stated that he saw the deceased boarding the last compartment. Ex.A.6 is the letter said to have been written by AW.2 to the deceased. Perusal of this letter shows that the deceased had borrowed Rs.1,000/from AW.2. But in the crossexamination, he has stated that the signature found in Ex.A.6 is not his signature. Therefore referring to this answer, it was argued by the appellant’s counsel that since AW.2 disowned his

¶47

:: 9 ::

¶48

signature on Ex.A.6, his testimony cannot be believed to come to conclusion that the deceased traveled to Mysuru on 29.12.2006.

¶49

If the entire evidence of AW.2 is perused, it may be stated that merely because he has stated that the signature in the letter is not his, it is not possible to infer that his entire testimony is untrustworthy. It may be a stray answer. In the examination-in-chief, he has clearly stated to have written a letter to the deceased and even in the cross-examination he has answered that he wrote

¶50

a letter to the deceased during November, 2007. Ex.A.6 bears the postal seal dated 3.11.2007. The address found on Ex.A.6 is that of the deceased and it is not disputed. In view of this, the testimony of AW.2 cannot be discarded. Clear inference can be drawn from the evidence of AW.2 that he saw the deceased boarding Bengaluru – Mysuru passenger. So when his evidence is

¶51

:: 10 ::

¶52

believable, merely for the reason that ticket was not found, it is not possible to draw an inference that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. In all probability the ticket might have been lost when the accident took place.

¶53

The next question is with regard to possibility of the deceased falling down from the moving train. In the case of Kamrunnissa , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, based on the facts and circumstances of that case came to conclusion that the deceased therein came in contact with the wheels while crossing the railway track. To come to that conclusion, reliance was placed on the FIR where it was clearly recorded that the deceased was crossing the railway track without noticing the train. If a person falls down from a moving train, chances of his coming in contact with the wheels is remote. But such an inference cannot be drawn always. It all depends on facts and circumstances.

¶54

:: 11 ::

¶55

To say in other words, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has only found possibility of the deceased being run over by a moving train. In this case, as the evidence of AW.2 shows that the deceased boarded the train, it is impossible to infer that the deceased was run over by the moving train near Nayandahalli while crossing the railway track and therefore this argument of the appellants’ counsel is not possible to be accepted.

¶56

From the foregoing discussion, it may be

¶57

concluded that the tribunal is justified in granting compensation to the claimants. I do not find any good ground to interfere. Therefore appeal is dismissed.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

The Union of India v. P Kistaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. P Kistaiah

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

Mr Manjunatha S Vs Mr R P M Subramanyam

Mr Ashfaq Ahmed Vs Mrs Iqbalunnisa Begum

Mr.Pvr Sai Kiran Vs Mr.Biswajit Kumar Choudhary

Smt Sowmya R Vs Sri N Mohammed Gufran

N. Mohammed Gufran Vs R. Sowmya

H Krishnaiah Vs Master Akshay Kumar