Remanded

Sri Mahadeva v. Union of India

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2023MFA/2216/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal order dismissing compensation for death by accident. The Court held the Tribunal erred in concluding the deceased was not a bonafide passenger because no ticket was recovered, referencing Supreme Court decisions that place the initial onus on the claimant which may shift to railways depending on facts.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the Tribunal's judgment dated 8.8.2018 was set aside; the matter was remanded for fresh consideration within six months.

Sri Mahadeva Vs Union of India — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2216 OF 2019 (RCT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MAHADEVA S/O. LATE. KIRAGAVALU DYAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶8

SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶9

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

KUM. DIVYA M D/O. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS ALL ARE R/O. # 116, WARD NO. 22 GM STREET, SUNNADAKERI THAMMADAHALLI ROAD MALAVALLI TOWN, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶11

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJA K G.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

AND:

¶14

UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY HUBLI 580020

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI.H SHANTHI BHUSAHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED: 08.08.2018 PASSED ON OA II U 139/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION AS PER FINDINGS AND SPEAKING ORDER IN THE FOREGOING PARAS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) challenging the judgment dated 8.8.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A.II-U-No.139/2016, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the applicants.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶22

3. Brief facts of the case of the applicants:

¶23

The deceased Manu.M. was a student studying in a college at Bidadi and was staying with his friend at Nayandahally, Bangalore. On 6.11.2014, deceased had been to his native place and on 7.11.2014, the deceased,

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶25

in order to attend the college, left the house at 8:00 a.m.

¶26

and went to Maddur Railway Station, purchased a journey ticket for his travel from Maddur to Bidadi in the presence of one Sri.Chundhanagiri, neighbor of the deceased and after purchasing the ticket, they boarded the Train No.16215-Chamundi Express. Since there was heavy crowd in the compartment, they were forced to stand near the door of the compartment and the train had a scheduled halt at Channapatna Railway Station, the neighbor had alighted the train at Channapatna. When the train was running between Channapatna and Ramanagaram Railway stations, due to the jerk, the deceased accidentally fell down from the moving train at KM No.46/300-400, sustained severe injuries to head and succumbed to injuries on 7.11.2014 while undergoing treatment.

¶27

The applicants filed application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation. On service of summons, the

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶29

respondent appeared through counsel and filed written

¶30

statement and denied the averments made in the application. The applicants have examined 1 witness and produced 20 documents. The respondent has not examined any witness, but produced one document, DRM report. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the applicants.

¶31

The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the deceased Manu.M was the son of the applicant Nos.1 and 2 and bother of applicant No.3. On 7.11.2014, the deceased, in order to attend the college at Bidadi, left the native place and went to Maddur Railway Station and boarded the Train No.16215-Chamundi Express along with a neighbor. Since there was heavy crowd in the compartment, they were forced to stand near the door of the compartment and when the train was running between Channapatna and Ramanagaram Railway stations, due to

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶33

the jerk, the deceased lost his balance and accidentally fell down from the moving train and the train ran over him, as a result, he sustained severe injuries to head and succumbed to injuries on 7.11.2014 while undergoing treatment. He further contended that the applicants filed the affidavit and adduced evidence and proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and he was traveling in the train after purchasing the valid ticket. The respondent-Railways has not disputed the affidavit filed by the applicants and they have also not examined any witness. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court has erred in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

¶34

Secondly, the learned counsel has contended that as per the post mortem report and charge sheet, filed by the applicants, it is very clear that the deceased fell from the moving train and the train ran over him and he succumbed to injuries. All these documents are very clear that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and due to untoward incident occurred while the deceased was traveling in the

¶35

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶36

train bearing No.16215, he fell down, the train ran over him and succumbed to injuries. He further contended that the applicants have proved their case and discharged their burden. In support of his case, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the applicants except examining the applicant No.2 as AW-1, they have not produced any documents to show that the deceased was traveling in the train. The applicants were not the eyewitness to the accident. He further contended that at the time of the post mortem, the Investigating Officer has recovered all the articles belonging to the deceased, but the ticket has not been recovered. Therefore, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train in which he was traveling and no evidence has been produced to show that he fell from the running train and train ran over him. Considering

¶38

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶39

the facts of the case, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment of the Tribunal.

¶41

The specific case of the applicants is that the deceased Manu.M. was a student studying in a college at Bidadi and was staying with his friend at Nayandahally, Bangalore. On 6.11.2014, deceased had been to his native place and on 7.11.2014, the deceased, in order to attend the college, left the house at 8:00 a.m. and went to Maddur Railway Station, purchased a journey ticket for his travel from Maddur to Bidadi along with a neighbor and after purchasing the ticket, they boarded the Train No.16215-Chamundi Express. Since there was heavy crowd in the compartment, they were forced to stand near the door of the compartment and the train had a scheduled halt at Channapatna Railway Station, the neighbor had alighted the train at Channapatna. When the

¶42

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶43

train was running between Channapatna and

¶44

Ramanagaram Railway stations, due to the jerk, the deceased accidentally fell down from the moving train at KM No.46/300-400, sustained severe injuries. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Ramanagara. Later, he succumbed to injuries on 7.11.2014 while undergoing treatment.

¶45

To prove the case, the applicants have examined applicant No.2 as AW-1 i.e., Smt.Lakshmi, mother of the deceased. She has categorically stated that her son left the house in order to attend the college at Bidaddi and purchased the ticket at Maddur Railway station and due to heavy crowd, the deceased was standing near the door of the compartment. Due to jerk, the deceased fell down from the running train, and he sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries.

¶46

The applicants have produced postmortem report and police have filed charge sheet. The said documents corroborates with the evidence of the applicants. To

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶49

disprove the case of the applicants, the respondent has

¶50

not examined any witness except producing DRM report.

¶51

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 in paragraphs 25 and 26 is held as under:

¶52

25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.

¶53

10 -

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶55

Re: (iii) Burden of proof when body found on railway premises – Definition of Passenger :

¶56

26. Conflict of decisions has been pointed out on the subject. As noticed from the statutory provision, compensation is payable for death or injury of a ‘passenger’. In Raj Kumari (supra) referring to the scheme of Railways Act, 1890, it was observed that since travelling without ticket was punishable, the burden was on the railway administration to prove that passenger was not a bonafide passenger. The Railway Administration has special knowledge whether ticket was issued or not. The 1989 Act also has similar provisions being Sections 55 and 137. This view has led to an inference that any person dead or injured found on the railway premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide passenger so as to maintain a claim for compensation. However, Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) held that initial onus to prove death or injury to a bona fide passenger is always on the claimant. However, such onus can shift on Railways if an affidavit of relevant facts is filed by the claimant. A negative onus cannot be placed on the Railways. Onus to prove that the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger can be discharged even in absence of a ticket if relevant

¶57

11 -

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶59

facts are shown that ticket was purchased but it was lost. The Delhi High Court observed as follows :

¶60

“4…(ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants is totally misconceived. The initial onus in my opinion always lies with the appellants/applicants to show that there is a death due to untoward incident of a bona fide passenger. Of course, by filing of the affidavit and depending on the facts of a particular case that initial onus can be a light onus which can shift on the Railways, however, it is not the law that even the initial onus of proof which has to be discharged is always on the railways and not on the applicants. I cannot agree to this proposition of law that the Railways have the onus to prove that a deceased was not a bonafide passenger because no such negative onus is placed upon the Railways either under the Railways Act or the Railway Claims Tribunal Act & Rules or as per any judgment of the Supreme Court. No doubt, in the facts of the particular case, onus can be easily discharged such as in a case where deceased may have died at a place where he could not have otherwise been unless he was travelling in the train and in such circumstances depending on the facts of a particular case it may not be necessary to prove the factum of the deceased having a ticket because ticket as per the type of incident of death can easily be lost in an accident. I at this stage take note of a

¶61

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶62

judgment of a leaned Single Judge of this Court in the case reported as Pyar Singh Vs. Union of India 2007 (8) AD Del. 262 which holds that it is the claimant upon whom the initial onus lies to prove his case. I agree to this view and I am bound by this judgment and not by the ratio of the case of Leelamma.”

¶63

The finding of the Tribunal that since the ticket was

¶64

not recovered from the deceased body, he was not a bonafide passenger of the train, in which he was traveling, is erroneous. The Tribunal has erred in holding that the applicants have failed to discharge their burden.

¶65

Therefore, in view of the above and in order to give one more opportunity to both the parties to establish their case and also in view of the decision of the Apex Court stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Hence, the following order is passed:

¶66

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:42741 MFA No. 2216 of 2019

¶67

ORDER

¶68

a) The appeal is allowed.

¶69

b) The judgment dated 8.8.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A.II-UNo.139/2016, is set-aside.

¶70

c) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for

¶71

fresh consideration.

¶72

d) The Tribunal after giving opportunities to the parties shall decide the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment

¶73

e) Both the parties are directed to co-operate for disposal of the matter.

¶74

DM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Mahadeva v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahadeva v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G Janardhan Vs Smt Lakshmidevamma

Chikkamma Vs Nikhil N M

Ms T Kavitha Vs Mr Sagar K R

Mrs Arogya Mary Vs Mrs Rani Ammal

Dr M Ramesh Vs Mr Gunashekar B

P Thopegowda Vs Sri J Rudresh