Allowed

Sri Shivu v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024MFA/3288/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Railway Claims Tribunal denial of compensation for injuries suffered in a fall from a train. The High Court found contemporaneous records proved the untoward incident, set aside the Tribunal order, and remanded for quantum determination with liberty to adduce disability evidence.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order set aside; matter remanded to determine compensation quantum, with liberty to file additional documents and examine doctor on disability.

Sri Shivu Vs the Union of India — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44483 MFA No. 3288 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3288 OF 2017 (RCT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SHIVU S/O DEVENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT SHAHAPURPET, BEHIND MATINMATH, YADGIR, YADGIR TALUK, GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 201.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI G M SRINIVASAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD - 500 011.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI ABHINAY Y T, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.2016 PASSED IN OA II U 65/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH AND ETC.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44483 MFA No. 3288 of 2017

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2016 passed in OA II U 65/2009 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶22

appellant. The counsel for the respondent is absent.

¶23

The factual matrix of the claimant before the

¶24

Tribunal is that he was traveled from Gulbarga to Yadgir in the train No.6331 and during the said journey, he was about to get down from the train and due to slip of leg, he fell down on platform and sustained grievous injuries and immediately the railway police have admitted him to the general hospital at Yadgir and for further treatment, he

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44483 MFA No. 3288 of 2017

¶26

was shifted in the hospital at Gulbarga where his leg as amputated.

¶27

The counsel for the respondent appeared and filed the statement of objections stating that the claimant might have sustained injuries due to some other reason but not due to accidental fall from train and applicant had created a false story of alleged incident for the purpose of claiming compensation and injured applicant was not a bonafide passenger of train No.6331 on 22.05.2008.

¶28

The Tribunal having considered the pleadings of

¶29

the parties, framed the following Issues:

¶30

Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger?

¶31

Whether the injuries sustained by the applicant is due to an untoward incident on Railways?

¶32

Whether the applicant is entitled for relief and interest as prayed for in the claim application?

¶33

The Tribunal having considered the pleadings of

¶34

the parties, allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44483 MFA No. 3288 of 2017

¶36

order to prove the case of the claimant, as the applicant was minor, his father-Devendrappa examined as AW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.A1 to A11. On the other hand, respondent submits DRM’s report which is marked as Ex.R1 and not led any evidence. The Tribunal while answering issues considered the documents at Ex.A1 to A4

¶37

and also particularly Ex.R1 and comes to the conclusion that there is lot of anomaly. First of all, the Tribunal find that date of occurrence of incident is different and different documents filed before the Tribunal and application was filed on 28.04.2009 states the date of occurrence of incident as 25.05.2008 and again the subsequent original application filed on 10.05.2009 shows the date as 27.05.2008 and amended application filed on 14.12.2015 vide paragraph 7 states as 27.05.2008. Respondent’s reply statement states the date of occurrence of incident as 22.05.2008 while preliminary objections speaks about the incident that occurred on 27.05.2008. When AW1 was cross-examined with regard to this aspect, he says that he does not know the date,

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44483 MFA No. 3288 of 2017

¶39

time and year of the incident. Having taken note of the said answer and also the material available on record, particularly, the Tribunal relied upon the DRM’s report wherein speaks about the date as 22/23.05.2008. Neither applicant has tried to rectify or justify the anomalies nor respondent has tried to detect the anomalies and raise objections on this issue. These anomalies in date of occurrence of incident clearly raises doubt on the merits of the case. The Tribunal however, taking into note of Ex.R1 wherein the Police Constable state that on 22/23.05.2008, he was very much on duty at the time of the incident and no such incident was taken place. Taking this discrepancy, comes to the conclusion that claimant has not proved the incident. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

¶40

The counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the document at Ex.A1 reveals that the message issued by the Station Master at Yadgir to RPF/Yadgir on 28.05.2008 as one male passenger age

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44483 MFA No. 3288 of 2017

¶42

about 18 years fell down by 6351 express and he is heavy injured. Please attend and do needful. The Tribunal fails to consider Ex.A1. Ex.A2 also a report of the police constable wherein also he specifically stated that with regard to the alleged incident and injury sustained by the petitioner And the Tribunal ought to have considered these documents and without considering the said documents committed an error only referring Ex.R1 and the respondent also not led any evidence.

¶43

This Court having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material available on record and particularly considering Ex.A1, wherein it is very clear that a message was sent by the Station Superintendent on the very day of incident stating that a male passenger aged about 18 years fell down from the train No.6351 and he had sustained severe injuries and also request was made to attend and do the needful. Hence, it is clear that incident was taken place on the very same day. It is also important to note that on the very

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44483 MFA No. 3288 of 2017

¶45

same day, statement of RPC No.495 was recorded wherein he categorically mentioned the name of the injured and father name as Devendrappa and only discrepancy is mentioning the age of the injured as 16 years and in the document it is mentioned as 18 years. On the very same day, injured statement was also recorded by the police wherein he categorically stated that he was taken immediately to the Government hospital at Yadgir and he was also advised to go to higher treatment at Gulbarga. Ex.A1 to A3 is very specific with regard to the incident which had taken place. Apart from that ticket is produced and the same is marked as Ex.A4 and said ticket is dated 27.05.2008. Thus, the records clearly reveals about the incident is concerned and the document at Ex.A9 shows that injured had taken treatment at Gulbarga hospital from 30.06.2008 to 11.07.2008 and he had suffered crush injury and this document also evident that the injured had sustained grievous injury and immediate police records also reveal about the untoward incident. However, the Tribunal mainly relies upon Ex.R1 wherein the Inspector

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44483 MFA No. 3288 of 2017

¶47

Protection Force/RPF recorded the statement of one B

¶48

Saheb John who made the statement that no accident was taken place on 22.05.2008 and except Ex.R1, no other material is placed before the Court by the respondent to show that the alleged incident was not taken place 22/23.05.2008. The Tribunal blindly accepted the document at Ex.R1 and not considered the documents at Ex.A1 to A4 as well as Ex.A9 and erroneously comes to the conclusion that there are anomaly in the documents but there is no such anomaly in the documents since the incident taken place on 28.05.2008 and not on 22.05.2008. Hence, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to such a conclusion and hence, the order of the Tribunal requires to be set aside since the reasoning given by the Tribunal is not based on the material on record and only relied upon the self styled document of Ex.R1.

¶49

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶50

the following:

¶51

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:44483 MFA No. 3288 of 2017

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed.

¶54

The order dated 07.03.2016 passed in OA II U 65/2009 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to determine the quantum of compensation with regard to the injury is concerned.

¶55

The appellant is also given liberty to place additional documents, if any, before the Tribunal and examine the doctor with regard to disability sustained by the injured in the untoward incident.

¶56

The appellant is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.11.2024 without expecting any notice.

¶57

The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six months since the matter is of the year 2009.

¶58

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶59

Sri Shivu v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivu v. the 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

Y Anjinappa Vs Sri Muniyallappa

Shri. P.S.Manjunatha Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

Smt Kusuma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

Sri Ashwathappa Vs Smt N Radha @ Radhamma

M/S Vaswani Whitefield Projects (P) Ltd. Vs K C Rajaram

Sri. Chandrashekaraiah T B Vs Nil