Allowed

Smt Rangamma v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2024MFA/6033/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal dismissal. The Court held that the standard of proof is based on probabilities. Valid statutory evidence (ticket, witness statements) was sufficient to establish the accident, rejecting the Railway's defense of suicide or planted evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; Claim petition allowed; Compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- adjusted to Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest awarded.

Smt Rangamma Vs the Union of India — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13692 MFA No. 6033 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6033 OF 2014 (RCT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RANGAMMA W/O PALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶9

NAGARAJ S/O PALAYYA,

¶10

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶11

CHANDRASHEKAR S/O S. PALAYYA,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶13

SIDDAPPA

¶14

S/O S.PALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶15

SRINIVAS S/O S.PALAYYA,

¶16

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶18

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KAMANABHAVI BADAVANE, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI - 580620. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. TIMMANNA BHAT, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶23

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13692 MFA No. 6033 of 2014

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2014 PASSED ON O.A.II U 172/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The claimants are in appeal challenging the judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (henceforth referred to as 'Tribunal') in O.A.II.U.172/2011 by which, the claim petition was dismissed.

¶28

The claimants claimed that they were the dependant legal heirs of Manjunath, who was employed at a transport company. They claimed that on 28.12.2010, Manjunath boarded Rani Chennamma Express train after purchasing a ticket to travel from Belgaum to Bengaluru. They claimed that Manjunath went to the toilet and while returning, he lost balance as the train jerked suddenly, he fell down the train and succumbed to the injuries at the spot at K.M.No.270/000-100 between Chikkajajur - Holalkere Railway Station. They claimed that a key gangman found the body of the deceased - Manjunath, who informed the nearest Railway Station, following which, an inquest was conducted on the

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13692 MFA No. 6033 of 2014

¶30

deceased, which revealed that the deceased was traveling on a ticket bearing No.C57766686. A case in UDR No.74/2010 was registered on 29.12.2010. The claimants claimed that the death was due to an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 and therefore, claimed that they were entitled to be compensated.

¶31

The claim petition was resisted by the Railways, who denied the assertions made in the claim petition. It contended that the case on hand was a case of volenti non fit injuria and the claimants could not take advantage of a wrong committed by the deceased. It denied the assertion that the deceased had traveled from Belgaum to Bengaluru on a ticket bearing No.C57766686 and that while returning from the toilet, he fell down as the train jerked suddenly. It denied that the deceased died due to an untoward incident and there was no carelessness or negligence on the part of the employees of the railways. It contended that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and the inquest drawn showed that the body was found inside the track. Therefore, it contended that the deceased committed suicide and it was not a case of falling down from the train. It further contended that the ticket was

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:13692 MFA No. 6033 of 2014

¶34

planted to help the claimants to claim compensation. It contended that if a person fell down from the train, the body would be thrown away from the track but in the instant case, the body was found on the track, which was improbable. Further, it contended that the postmortem report indicated that the death was 40 to 50 hours before the postmortem and the doctor was unable to give any opinion as the body was decomposed. It contended that these probablise the fact that the deceased did not travel by the train and did not fall down from it but died due to some other reason. It claimed that the incident in question cannot be treated as "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

¶35

Based on these contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial. The claimant No.1 was examined as AW.1 and she marked documents as Exs.A1 to A14. The railways marked the statutory investigation report by the Divisional Railway Manager as Ex.R1 but did not enter the witness box.

¶36

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the

¶37

Tribunal passed the impugned judgment rejecting the claim petition on the ground that no one had seen the deceased

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13692 MFA No. 6033 of 2014

¶39

purchasing the ticket, boarding the train and falling down from it. It held that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and there was no report by any guard or driver or public to the Station Master or any railway authorities. It held that the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem was not able to give his opinion about the cause of death as the body was in a decomposed condition. It relied upon Ex.R1, which held that the deceased did not die due to a fall from the train. It further held that the ticket was planted by placing it in the pocket of the deceased and therefore, he was not a bonafide passenger. It held that even if the deceased fell down from the train, it could have happened on the intervening night of 28 - 29^th December, 2010 and therefore, it was improbable that the body could be decomposed on 29.12.2010 as the postmortem was conducted on 30.12.2010 between 3.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. Therefore, it held that the claimants had not made out a case. It further held that there were no blood stains on the ballast but engine oil marks were found all over the body. It held that this indicated that the body was smeared with engine oil after placing it in the middle of the railway track. Consequently, it dismissed the claim petition.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:13692 MFA No. 6033 of 2014

¶42

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal

¶43

is filed.

¶44

The learned counsel for the claimants contended that just because there were no eyewitnesses to the incident, it cannot be held that the incident did not happen on the fateful day. He contended that the claimants were all residents of Chitradurga, while the deceased was employed in a transport company and thus, it was probable that the deceased had traveled from Belgaum to Bengaluru. He submitted that the railways did not make any effort to verify whether the journey ticket recovered from the deceased was genuine or not. He contended that the police inspector of the Railway Police Station had opined that the death was due to an untoward incident and since the deceased was a bonafide passenger traveling in the train on a valid ticket, the claimants were entitled to be compensated. He further contended that three witnesses had recorded their statements before the police, which were marked as Exs.A9, A10 and A11 and they supported the case of the claimants. He contended that the report of the Divisional Railway Manager was based on the report of the postmortem that the body was in a decomposed

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:13692 MFA No. 6033 of 2014

¶47

condition. He contended that since the deceased fell down from the train in the late night hours and as many trains moved in that sector, the body could be crushed to pieces and therefore, was decomposed. He claimed that this could not be a reason to reject the claim petition. He further contended that the railways did not adduce any oral evidence to justify its claim that the death was not due to an untoward incident.

¶48

Per contra, learned Central Government Counsel for

¶49

the railways contended that it is impossible for any person falling down a moving train to come under the wheels of the train as he would be thrown away from the track. He further contended that the journey ticket was from Belgaum to Bengaluru and no evidence was produced to establish that the deceased had gone to Belgaum. He further contended that since the body was highly decomposed, it was probable that the deceased must have either committed suicide long before 28.12.2010 or must have been killed and placed on the track any time before 28.12.2010. He therefore, submitted that the circumstances demonstrated that the deceased did not travel by the train and did not fall down from it and hence, there was no untoward incident.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:13692 MFA No. 6033 of 2014

¶52

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants as well as the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent - Railways.

¶53

A petition claiming compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has to be determined based on the probabilities of the case rather than expecting strict proof of the incident resulting in the death. The Court is also bound to take cognizance of the way in which people travel in a rail and the extent of safeguards taken by the railways to ensure the safe travel of the passengers. The fact that a journey ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased is not in dispute though it is contended that it was planted in the case. The fact that the deceased was found dead on the track between Chikkajajur - Holalkere Railway Station at K.M.No.270/000-100, which was reported by the key gangman of the Indian Railways is also not in dispute. The statements of two witnesses were recorded by the police, which were marked as EXs.A9, A10 and A11, which probablise that the deceased had traveled by the train on the fateful day. This was more than enough to accept the case of the claimants that the deceased traveled from Belgaum to Bengaluru on 28.12.2010

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:13692 MFA No. 6033 of 2014

¶56

and fell off the train. It is not improbable for a person falling off from the train to come under the wheels of the train due to momentum of a fall and the body could rollback towards the moving train. This apart, the Railways have not tried to ascertain the number of trains, which ran across that sector. If many trains had run over that track, then it is quite probable that the body could be cut into pieces and would be decomposed. This cannot be a reason to deny the claim petition filed by the claimants. The Tribunal has proceeded on the assumptions without there being any evidence by the railways. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal warrants interference.

¶57

Hence, the following

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) The appeal is allowed.

¶60

ii) The impugned judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed in O.A.II.U. 172/2011 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru, is set aside. The claim petition filed by the claimants is allowed and the claimants are

¶61

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:13692 MFA No. 6033 of 2014

¶62

entitled to statutory compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date and at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this judgment till the date of payment.

¶63

iii) In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi - (2019) 3 SCC 572, if the compensation and interest does not exceed Rs.8,00,000/-, then the claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and in the event if it exceeds Rs.8,00,000/-, they shall be entitled to actual compensation.

¶64

iv) The respondent/railways shall deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest before the Tribunal within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶65

11 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:13692 MFA No. 6033 of 2014

¶67

v) Upon deposit, 75% of the compensation and interest shall be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of claimant No.1/mother of the deceased,

¶68

in any nationalized bank for a period of five

¶69

years.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt Rangamma v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rangamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sundramma Vs Grama Devathe

Smt Jayamma Vs Smt Puttama

Mr Narendra Mohan Dube Vs Mr Shivaraj

Sri. Shamanna Vs Mrs. Rajini T

Mr S Raghunandan Vs Dr Geethanjali K

Mr Bruno D Costa Vs Mr Fr James Charlie