Allowed

Smt. Saramma v. Union of India

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2024MFA/5475/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a miscellaneous first appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal order rejecting a death claim. The Court found the Tribunal erred in ignoring evidence of a bona fide ticket and accepting a self-styled report over the police Final Report. The Court set aside the dismissal, allowed the claim, and awarded compensation.

What did the court decide?

The claim petition is allowed; the Tribunal’s order is set aside; compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest awarded.

Smt. Saramma Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5475 OF 2021 (RCT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SARAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O NWC 52/AB NEW COLONY, NEW TOWN BHADRAVATHI-577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE

¶9

…APPELLANT (BY SRI K G SHANTHARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

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

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI B M KUSHALAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2019 PASSED IN OA NO. II U 030/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2019 passed in OA II U No.30/2017 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (herein after called as ‘Tribunal’).

¶19

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case of he claimants

¶21

before the Tribunal that the deceased by name Michel Bilmoria board the train on 22.01.2016 to travel from Bengaluru to Bhadravathi in a intercity passenger train and while traveling in the said train, accidentally, he fell down and an untoward incident was taken place. As a result, the deceased body was found in a cut of two portions and the same was intimated to the police and the

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶23

police have registered the case and thereafter investigated the matter and filed the final report. Hence, the claim was made and the same was rejected by the Tribunal only on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

¶24

The counsel for the appellant would vehemently

¶25

contend that even though blood stain half ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased which prima facie discloses that the deceased had traveled in the said train, the Tribunal failed to consider both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and hence, the order of the Tribunal is arbitrary. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Ex.A1 – FIR and A7 – Final Report. In Ex.A7- Final Report, it is specifically mentioned that there is an untoward incident while travelling in the train. The counsel also submits that in the evidence of AW1 nothing is elicited except denying that the deceased was not traveled and fell down from the train. Thus, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to a conclusion that

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶27

the deceased was not a bonafide passenger relying upon the document at Ex.R1 which is a self-styled report produced by the respondent and not adduced any evidence against the evidence of the claimants. The counsel further submits that the Tribunal comes to an erroneous conclusion that it is a clear case of trespassing

¶28

into the railway property without a valid journey ticket. The Tribunal has given an erroneous finding that body of the deceased was cut into two halves. This would clearly indicate that the deceased must have been run over by some train as otherwise the body could not have been cut into two halves with one half between the tracks and the other outside the tracks. The nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the manner in which two pieces of the dead body of the deceased was found lying will not suggest the fact that he could have fallen down from a running train. The counsel would vehemently contend that the reason assigned in paragraphs 4 and 5 by the Tribunal is only an imaginary and the Tribunal given its own interpretation considering the manner in which the body

¶29

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶30

was found. The very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous.

¶31

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that Tribunal while rejecting the claim petition taken note of the material available on record and given the valid reasons. The counsel also in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment reported in (2019) 12 SCC 391 in the case

¶32

of KAMRUNNISSA vs UNION OF INDIA and brought to

¶33

notice of this Court paragraph 7 wherein the Apex Court made an observation that the body of the deceased had been cut into two pieces, and was lying next to the railway track. The report further indicates that the intestine of the deceased had come out of the body. The above factual position reveals that the body was cut into two pieces from the stomach. This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the inquest report that the intestines of the deceased had come out of the body. It is not possible to accept that such an accident could have taken place while

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶35

boarding a train. The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that the facts of the case and also the discussion made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment will fit into the case on hand. Hence, prays this Court to dismiss the appeal.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for the

¶37

consideration of this Court are:

¶38

Whether the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the claim petition in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and whether it requires interference of this Court?

¶39

What order?

¶40

Point No.1

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶42

the respective parties and also on perusal of the material

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶44

available on record, it discloses that it is the case of the claimants that the deceased had traveled in the intercity passenger train from Bengaluru to Bhadravathi and accidentally, he fell down and as a result, the body was cut into two pieces. It is also claim of the appellant that even blood stain half ticket was recovered from the pant pocket of the deceased. The evidence of AW1 who is the mother of the deceased has reiterates the averments made in the claim petition. In the cross-examination of AW1 except suggesting that the deceased was not traveled in the said train, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the case of the claimants.

¶45

It is also important to note that on perusal of Ex.A1 it is clear that intimation is received that body was lying between Tumkur and Mallasandra railway station at K.N.NO.70/100-200 and the said information was received at 3.30 p.m. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the final report of the railway police who conducted the investigation and filed the report wherein also

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶47

specifically mentioned that having the material available on record particularly cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage and wound sustained and no doubt, the body was cut into two pieces and one piece was lying inside the railway track and another piece was lying outside the railway track and while filing the final report also Investigating Officer taken note of the said fact. Apart from that the half ticket was recovered from the pocket of the deceased and also comes to the conclusion that while traveling in the train, he fell down and sustained injuries. The Tribunal fails to take note of Ex.A1 and A7 and proceeded to consider Ex.R1-DRM report and comes to the conclusion that this type of injuries will not have been caused in a railway accident.

¶48

No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court referred supra wherein a discussion was made with regard to body cut into two pieces and on perusal of the reasons assigned in the impugned order that the deceased might

¶49

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶50

have died while crossing the railway track, he having not noticed the oncoming train, was overrun by the train and in order to come to such a conclusion no material is placed and the same is only an assumption. But in the case on hand, it has to be noted that the very specific case of the claimant that the deceased had traveled from Bengaluru to Bhadravathi and apart from that journey ticket also found in the pocket of the deceased same has not been disputed. Investigation was conducted by the railway police after registration of the case and after investigation, filed the final report coming to the conclusion that an untoward incident was taken place while traveling in the train and he fell down and sustained injuries. Except placing of Ex.R1, the respondent has not placed any material before the Tribunal to counter the case of the claimants. The claimants have produced Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-intimation given to the police on the very same day at 15.30 hours, Ex.A3-Inquest which is clear with regard to the traveling of the deceased in the train and accidentally, fell down from the train and sustained injuries and A7-Final Report goes

¶51

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶52

against the railway’s. The respondent has not produced any document except Ex.R1 to discard the case of the claimants but the Tribunal fails to consider the said documents and only discussion made that the body was found in two pieces and assumed that in a case of railway accident, body will not found in such manner and the Tribunal has acted as an expert and comes to the conclusion that it is not an untoward incident and the deceased was a not a bonafide passenger. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is without any basis. Hence, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to such a conclusion that the claimants have not proved the case and the said reasoning is erroneous and not taken note of oral and documentary evidence. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 as affirmative.

¶53

Point No.2

¶54

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶55

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed in part.

¶58

(ii) The impugned judgment dated 11.11.2019 passed in OA II U No.30/2017

¶59

by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. Consequently, the claim petition is allowed.

¶60

(iii) The appellant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a., from the date of filing the claim application till its realization. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellant shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶61

(iv) The amount of compensation be satisfied

¶62

by the respondent within a period of eight weeks. If, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- is

¶63

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:46999 MFA No. 5475 of 2021

¶64

not paid within two months, the claimant is entitled for interest at 9% p.a., till the date of payment of compensation after two months of this award.

¶65

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶66

Smt. Saramma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saramma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Esi Corporation Vs M/S Renram Fashions India Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Rajeev Chandrasekhar Vs Mr Sachin Rao

H Shanker Shetty Vs Vijayanagar Club

Smt Patalamma Vs Sri Anjanappa

Ramakrishna Dutta Trust (Regd) Vs Smt Shantamma

Sri D. Sudhakar Vs Smt. M.Rukmini