The Karnataka High Court dismissed the commissioners railway claims tribunal order for 2013 in an MFA appeal by the railways. Upholding the tribunal's conclusion that the deceased fell from the train based on the post-mortem report and an affidavit regarding a lost ticket, the court found no basis to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
MFA NO.9732 OF 2013 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
The Union of India, Represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
…Appellant
(By Sri Abhinay Y.T., Advocate)
AND:
Both residing at Kadadur Tanda, Chittapur Taluka, Gulbarga District.
…Respondents
(By Sri Mohd. Shariff, Advocate for R1 & R2)
This MFA is filed under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against the order dated 23.08.2013 passed in OA II U 109/2009 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench,
:: 2 ::
Bengaluru, awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/with interest @ 6% P.A. from 26.08.2009 till the date of filing of original application and thereafter 9% P.A. till the date of realization.
This MFA coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Abhinay Y.T, learned counsel for the appellant. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is absent.
a bona fide purchaser as she had purchased a
:: 3 ::
ticket. On the way, accidentally she fell down from the moving train because of a sudden jerk and jolt, sustained grievous multiple injuries and at last succumbed to them. The Tribunal after holding enquiry granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% from 26.8.2009, i.e., from the date of application till the date of judgment and 9% thereafter till realization.
appellant. The deceased did not possess railway ticket and therefore she was not a bona fide purchaser. She came under the wheels of the train when she was crossing the track and thus the accident occurred. The Tribunal has lost sight of all these aspects of the matter for allowing the claim petition. Therefore it is his submission that this appeal deserves to be allowed.
:: 4 ::
and also the evidence. It is an admitted fact that
the deceased did not possess railway ticket, but the father of the deceased who adduced evidence as AW-I stated on oath that his daughter had purchased a ticket and it was lost when she fell down from the moving train. The actual defence put forward by the appellant was that the deceased might have committed suicide by coming in contact with unknown running train or she might have been murdered and her dead body might have been kept on the track to make it believe that it was accidental death due to fall from the moving train. If the post mortem report is perused, the possibility of these two defences can be ruled out. If the deceased had committed suicide, the body should have been cut into two halves or even if she had been murdered and the body was kept on the railway track, then also the body should have been cut into two pieces. But
:: 5 ::
the post mortem report shows multiple injuries which could happen only when a person falls from a moving train. This probability cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal has held that because of rush in the train, she might be sitting near the door and might have fallen down because of a jolt and jerk. On facts, the Tribunal has arrived at a right conclusion which cannot be interfered with.
:: 6 ::
filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and then onus will shift on the railways to rebut it. It is held by the Tribunal that the Railways failed to discharge its onus once the claimant filed his affidavit stating that the ticket was lost. In this view, the Tribunal has taken the correct view to grant compensation in the absence of ticket. I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Hence, appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ckl/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in exercising its discretion to allow compensation despite the absence of a ticket at the time of the accident.
Whether the post mortem report negates the claim of suicide or murder and supports the finding of an accidental fall from the train.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
UNION OF INDIA vs RINA DEVIExplained¶36
UNION OF INDIA vs RINA DEVI [(2019) 3 SCC 572] · Who else cites this
The Union of India, Represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
Sri Shivaram
Smt. Tara Bai
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
