Dismissed

Smt. Amaravva v. Union of India

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022MFA/6925/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's order dismissing a compensation claim for death caused by a fall from a train, this court dismissed the appeal. Relying on Union of India vs. Rina Devi, the court upheld the tribunal's finding that the absence of prima facie evidence proving the victim was a bona fide passenger and that the death resulted from an untoward incide

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Amaravva Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 6925 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6925 OF 2017 (RCT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. AMARAVVA W/O LATE NARASAPPA HADAPAD, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE, R/O LAYADAHUNASI-GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT.

¶8

MAHANTHAMMA @ SHANTHAMMA, W/O VIRUPAKSHI HADAPAD, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O HUNSYALA, YALABURGA TALUK, KOPALA DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANTS

¶10

[BY SRI. N.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI-580020.

¶13

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) Court Of Karnataka

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS MFA FILED U/S.23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2017 PASSED ON OA II U 18/12 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION AS PER FINDINGS AND SPEAKING ORDER IN THE FOREGOING PARAS.

¶16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 6925 of 2017

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Challenging order dated 08.02.2017 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, (Bangalore Bench) (referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) in OA II U 18 / 2012, this appeal is filed.

¶21

Appellants herein were applicants, while respondent herein was respondent before Tribunal. They will be referred to as such in this appeal.

¶22

For death of one Sri Narsappa, in an untoward incident that occurred on 16.03.2011, wife and daughter of deceased Narasappa filed application for compensation under Section 16 of RCT Act 1987 r/w Sec.124-A of Railways Act 1989, seeking compensation from respondent - railway.

¶23

In application, it was stated that on 16.03.2011, deceased - husband of applicant no.1 and father of applicant no.2 to go to Dharward High Court and thereafter to Bangalore for leprosy treatment, left home and travelled by some train as bonafide passenger holding free journey, he fell from moving train and sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts of body and died at spot, therefore application was filed for compensation.

¶24

¶25

MFA No. 6925 of 2017

¶26

Upon receipt of application, respondent - Railways filed

¶27

written statement disputing its liability to pay compensation. It also contended that applicants have not filed any train ticket recovered from deceased to identify that deceased as bonafide passenger. Since deceased was not at all a traveller of any train on fate full day, but he died due to crossing of track, suicide or some other reason, which comes under exception of Section 124(A) of Railways Act, 1989, but not fall from train. It was contended that death was on account of his own criminal act, hence respondent - railways was not liable to pay compensation.

¶28

Based on pleading, tribunal framed following issues:

¶29

1. Whether the Victim was a bonafide passenger?

¶30

2. Whether there any untoward incident as contended?

¶31

3. Whether applicants are dependents as defined in the Railways Act?

¶32

4. What is compensation, if payable and who are entitled?

¶33

5. Reliefs and Costs?

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 6925 of 2017

¶36

To prove their case, applicant no.1 - wife of deceased was examined as AW-1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A12. Respondent did not adduce any oral evidence but got marked DRM’s Investigation Report Exhibit - R1.

¶37

On consideration, tribunal answered issues against

¶38

applicants and dismissed claim application.

¶39

Aggrieved same, tribunal, applicants are in appeal.

¶40

Sri. M R Hiremathad learned counsel appearing for appellants - applicants submitted that impugned order passed by tribunal was arbitrary, without appreciating material facts and evidence. It was contended that, though deceased had travelled to Dharward for High Court work, he fell from moving train due to which deceased sustained injuries and died, therefore deceased was a bonafide passenger. It was submitted that, presumption drawn by tribunal that death occurred possibly when deceased was crossing track is without any basis. Tribunal arrived at wrong conclusion about deceased was found between main track, which cannot be presumed that possibility of crossing tracks by his own negligence. Therefore,

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 6925 of 2017

¶43

tribunal was not justified in dismissing claim of applicants, hence sought for allowing appeal by awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- .

¶44

On other hand, Sri.Abhinay Y.T, learned counsel for respondent - Railways opposed appeal and contended that, as per Apex Court Judgment in Union of India V/s Rina Devi¹ , it has held that burden of establishing death/injury was on account of untoward incident would lie on applicants and mere presence of body lying on railway premises would not be conclusive, on which claim could be maintained.

¶45

Further, it was submitted that, applicants have not established prima facie case that deceased was bonafide passenger. Ex-R1 clearly states that deceased was not a bonafide passenger and died due to his own negligent act, which falls under exception to Section 124A of Railways Act. It is further contended that, deceased not at all travelled by train on date of incident, but died due to own negligence while crossing railway track. Inquest report clearly shows that body of deceased was decomposed and there was no recovery of

¶46

1 ( 2019) 3 SCC 572

¶47

¶48

MFA No. 6925 of 2017

¶49

train ticket to identify that deceased was bonafide passenger.

¶50

Hence respondent sought for dismissal of appeal.

¶51

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned award

¶52

and record.

¶53

From above contentions, point that arises for

¶54

consideration is:

¶55

“Whether dismissal of claim petition by tribunal requires interference?"

¶56

On perusal of award passed by tribunal, though there does not appear to be serious dispute about deceased travelling from Bengaluru to Dharwad, but fact that body was found in middle of main railway track after Dharwad Station in between Dharwad and KRKP Railway Station for which no ticket was found, weighed with tribunal to hold that death was not due to untoward incident. Since no specific evidence was led by applicants to establish that death was due to untoward incident, mere assertion by applicants would not be sufficient. In view of ratio in Rina Devi 's case (supra), tribunal was proper in passing impugned order in dismissing claim of applicants. Hence, no grounds are made out set aside order

¶57

¶58

MFA No. 6925 of 2017

¶59

passed by tribunal. Point for consideration is answered in

¶60

negative. Accordingly following:

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE

Psg*

Smt. Amaravva v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Amaravva v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Highways Authority of India Vs Smt M R Anuradha

The National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Shivalingaiah

Mrs. K. Padmaja Girish Vs Smt. Shwetha. H. N.

Mr Srinivas.G. Vs Mr N Ganesh

Sabira Banu Javeed Vs Union of India

Sri. H. H. Dayananda Vs Sri. H. H. Dinesh