Allowed

Smt Ameena Bi v. Union of India

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024MFA/2218/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirs of a man who fell from a train and died claimed railway compensation, which the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed for failure to prove bonafide passenger status due to absence of a journey ticket. The High Court held mere non-production of a ticket was not fatal, allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order and granted Rs.8,00,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Rs.8,00,000 compensation with 6% interest per annum from date of claim petition and 9% from date of judgment till payment; deposit within 30 days before the Tribunal; half placed in fixed deposit for

Smt Ameena Bi Vs Union of India — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9941 MFA No. 2218 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2218 OF 2019 (RCT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. AMEENA BI, W/O LATE. DADDU SAB, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HOME MAKER.

¶9

SRI. SAMEER AHMED @ SAMEER, S/O DADDU SAB, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, COOLIE,

¶10

BOTH ARE PERMANENT, R/AT NO.550-162, 1^ST MAIN, 1 CROSS, AMARAPPANA THOTA, DAVANAGERE – 577 002.

¶11

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. MUBEENA (MARRIED), D/O LATE. DADDU SAB AND W/O MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O ISLAMPUR, N.N. NAGARA, HUBLI-DHARWAD DISTRICT – 582 208.

¶13

(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA N., AFVOCATE FOR M. R. HIREMATHAD ADVOCATE)

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

AND:

¶16

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY HUBLI-580020

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:9941 MFA No. 2218 of 2019

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF RCT ACT, 1987 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2018 PASSED ON OA-II-U 110/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (BENGALURU), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF RCT ACT, 1987.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The claimants in O.A.II.U.No.110/2015 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (henceforth referred to as 'Tribunal') have filed this statutory appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 1987') questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 08.10.2018 by which, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

¶25

The claimants are the legal heirs of deceased - Daddu Sab. The claimants contended that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, who was traveling in the general compartment of Rani Chennamma Express train on 01.12.2014 from Davanagere to Hubballi. The claimants contended that due to heavy rush, the deceased was forced to stand near the door of the compartment. During the journey, the deceased

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9941 MFA No. 2218 of 2019

¶27

accidentally slipped when the train jerked and fell down from the train between Chalageri and Ranebennur Railway Station near KM No.358/800-900. The deceased suffered injuries on the head and died at the spot. The claimants therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Act of 1987 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of Mr. Daddu Sab.

¶28

The Railways contested the claim petition and denied their liability to pay the compensation. They claimed that it was a case of volenti non fit injuria and that "no man can take advantage of his own wrong". They claimed that the deceased was not a passenger much less a bonafide passenger as the claimants did not place on record the journey ticket.

¶29

Based on these contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial. The claimant No.1 was examined as AW.1 and she marked Exs.A1 to A18. The Traffic Inspector of Haveri Railway Station was examined as RW.1 and he marked documents as Exs.R1 to R5 and the investigation report of Divisional Railway Manager was marked as Ex.R6.

¶30

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the

¶31

Tribunal held that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9941 MFA No. 2218 of 2019

¶33

It also held that the train number of Rani Chennamma Express was wrongly mentioned as '16589' and it was only on 11.06.2018 that an application was filed for amendment to change the train number and name, which was rejected on 02.08.2018. It held that as per the cross-examination of AW.1, the deceased left the house around 11.00 a.m. on 01.12.2014, while Rani Chennamma Express had left Ranebennur at 3.46 a.m. Therefore, it held that the question of deceased traveling by Rani Chennamma Express and falling down did not arise. It held that there was nothing on record to show that the deceased traveled either by Rani Chennamma Express or Chalukya Express, as the police did not recover any thing/s from the deceased at the time of inquest. Therefore, it held that the claimants failed to discharge the initial burden that the deceased was traveling in a train with a valid journey ticket. Hence, it held that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased died while traveling in Rani Chennamma Express on 01.12.2014. Consequently, it dismissed the claim petition.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have filed this appeal.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:9941 MFA No. 2218 of 2019

¶37

The learned counsel for the claimants contended

¶38

that the claimant No.1 had stated that the deceased left his house on 01.12.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. and informed her that he was going to Hubballi to bring his daughter. He therefore, contended that it was probable that the deceased had traveled by a train from Davanagere to Hubballi. He contended that the deceased was a resident of Davanagere and the body of the deceased was found on the railway track at KM No.358/800-900 on 01.12.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. between Chalageri - Ranebennur Railway Station. He contended that the investigation report of the Divisional Railway Manager showed that the information regarding the death was reported to the Railway Police through the Station Master, Davanagere on the

¶39

basis of information provided by Sri. Shankarappa P.K., Keyman. Soon thereafter, an inquest was conducted on the deceased, which disclosed that the deceased was carrying a mobile and a few prescriptions. He contended that the deceased was going to Hubballi to bring back his daughter and therefore, it was very strange that he was not carrying cash. He therefore, contended that the deceased must have been searched and his valuables must have been taken away and in

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9941 MFA No. 2218 of 2019

¶41

the process, the journey ticket could have been lost. He therefore, contends that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as he did not possess a journey ticket, is based on assumption.

¶42

The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that the possibility of a person inflicting injury upon himself cannot be ruled out and coming under the wheels of a train, is one way of committing suicide. He therefore, submits that in every case, the Court is bound to look into the circumstances to decide whether the claim petition brought before it, is genuine or not and whether the deceased had died due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. He submits that it is the duty of the claimants to establish through probable evidence that the deceased was a bonafide passenger traveling in a train and that he suffered injuries due to an untoward incident. The learned Assistant Solicitor General contends that there is nothing to establish that the deceased was traveling in a train and therefore, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim petition.

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9941 MFA No. 2218 of 2019

¶44

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶45

learned counsel for the claimants as well as the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the records of the Tribunal as well as its judgment.

¶46

The claimant No.1 was examined as AW.1 and she deposed that the deceased was a Hamali at Davanagere and that on the fateful day, he left his house at 11.00 a.m. to Hubballi to bring back his daughter. The deceased was a resident of Davanagere and therefore, it is probable that he had traveled by train to Hubballi, as his body was found near Ranebennur at KM No.358/800-900 between Chalageri - Renebennur Railway Station. It is not the case of the respondent that any report of any attempted suicide by the deceased was received by the respondent from any gangman or any locomotive driver or guard etc., The nature of injuries shows that the limbs of the deceased was not severed giving an impression that the deceased did not come under the wheels of

¶47

the train but fell off the train and suffered head injuries. Therefore, the version of the claimants that the train was crowded and that the deceased had to travel by footboard,

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9941 MFA No. 2218 of 2019

¶49

cannot be disbelieved. The mere non-production of a journey ticket itself is not a ground to hold that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. It is common that a dead person, lying on a railway track is searched for valuables by vagabonds and in the process, the journey ticket might have been lost. Therefore, the claimants cannot be deprived of the compensation to which, they are entitled on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Even otherwise, the deceased left his house at 11.00 a.m. and his body was found at 5.00 p.m. Thus, if the deceased attempted suicide by coming under the wheels in broad daylight, someone would have noticed him. However, there is no police records to indicate that the deceased had attempted suicide. Thus, the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn was that the deceased died while traveling in a train. The mere wrong mentioning of a train number was not fatal as the claimants did not accompany the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal instead of pragmatically considering the case taking into account the probabilities, proceeded to consider it based on assumptions and expected proof beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference.

¶50

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9941 MFA No. 2218 of 2019

¶51

Hence, the following

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) The appeal is allowed . ii) The impugned judgment dated 08.10.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in O.A.II.U.No.110/2015 is set aside. The claim petition filed by the claimants is allowed.

¶54

iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till today and at the rate of 9% per annum from today till the date of payment.

¶55

iv) It is made clear that the respondent shall deposit the compensation amount with interest within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, before the Tribunal.

¶56

v) Upon deposit, 50% of the compensation amount along with interest shall be deposited in the name of appellant No.1/claimant No.1 in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of five years.

¶57

PMR

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Smt Ameena Bi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ameena Bi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T R Kishore Kumar Vs P Annaiah

P Kailasam Vs Savirasa Tele Films

Rakesh Vs Sureshrao

Smt. Gowramma Vs Sri. Venkatesh

Sri.C.S. Srinivas Vs Smt. Bhagyalakshmi

Mrs Sridevi Vs Smt Kousalya Palanivel