Allowed

Smt Emily Jethruth v. Union of India

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024MFA/8069/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family of a man found dead on railway tracks appealed the Railway Claims Tribunal's rejection of their death claim. The High Court held the Tribunal erred in doubting bonafide passenger status, allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal order and awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Tribunal judgment dated 19.08.2016 set aside; claim application allowed; Rs.4,00,000 plus 7% p.a. interest, minimum Rs.8,00,000 payable within eight weeks

Smt Emily Jethruth Vs Union of India — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8069 OF 2016 (RCT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT EMILY JETHRUTH W/O LATE DOMINIC ZAVIOUS AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS HOME MAKER

¶9

SHAN FRANKLINE D/O LATE DOMINIC ZAVIOUS AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MISS MARIA SHERLY D/O LATE DOMINIC ZAVIOUS AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/O WARD NO.1

¶12

B.PALLIPATTI VILLAGE AND POST DHARMAPURI-635301

¶13

SMT. ELIZABETH AGED 81 YEARS W/O ALTE KASINATHAN R/O BANASWADI BANGALORE

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶17

AND:

¶18

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

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL, CGC)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2016 PASSED IN OA NO.II U 02/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This MFA is filed challenging the rejection of the

¶25

claim petition filed by the appellants on the death of one Dominic Zaviour vide order dated 19.08.2016 passed in OA II U 02/2013 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short ‘Tribunal’).

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶29

The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 30.10.2012, the deceased who was a bonafide passenger, holding journey ticket, intending to go to Dharmapuri, was boarding a train at Baiyappanahalli railway station. But due to heavy rush in the compartment, he might have accidentally fell down and succumbed to the spot due to the grievous injuries. Journey ticket was lost in the incident as deceased’s body was shifted/handled at various places. Hence, made the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶30

The respondent appeared and filed the statement of objection contending that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as he had not at all traveled by any train on the incident day but he trespassed the railway premises and the incident has not occurred in the manner stated by the applicants in their application and the inquest report mentioned that dogs have eaten away some

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶32

portions of dead body. It presupposes that the death might have taken place long back and not due to untoward incident.

¶33

The Tribunal after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the claimants to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the claimants, 1^st claimant i.e., wife of the deceased examined herself as AW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.A1 to A23. On the other hand, the respondent has not led any evidence but got marked DRM’s investigation report at Ex.R1. The Tribunal having considering the discussions held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the time of accident and he did not fell down from the train and answered the Issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative and comes to the conclusion that the claimants are not entitled for any relief and dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶35

The main contention urged by the appellants in

¶36

this appeal is that the order passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and quiet contrary and the same is against the material available on record. It is very clear that body of the deceased was found on railway track i.e., 9 k.m. away from Baiyappanahalli station and the same was seen by the public. But the Tribunal has assumed the fact that the deceased did not travel but hit by the train and sustained fatal injuries, which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court at Ex.R1-DRM’s report which reveals that the respondent clearly admits the travel of the deceased but denied that he is was a bonafide passenger but no evidence is adduced in this regard and thus, the Tribunal has not rightly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly, Ex.R1 wherein contention was taken that he might have fell down at the time of boarding the train while running and slipped and fell down and hence, the observation of the Tribunal is against the material available on record. The counsel also

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶38

would vehemently contend that there can be no adverse incident as per the inquest report and FIR and this aspect of evidence is not considered by the Tribunal. The final report clearly discloses that the deceased might have tried to board the running train and fell down and sustained grievous injury which resulted in is death and the same has not been taken note of by the Tribunal and assumed that he has not traveled in the train and he is not a bonafide passenger and said observation is erroneous.

¶39

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the Tribunal in detail discussed the material available on record and in paragraph 8 of the order, the Tribunal discussed with regard to the pleading of the claimants and also defence of the respondent and also states that PM report also reveals the opinion of the doctor as death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result, multiple injuries sustained. The claimants maintained that the deceased had started the journey from Baiyappanahalli railway

¶40

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶41

station on 30.10.2012 and his body was found about 9 k.m. away from Baiyappanahalli railway station. Had he fell down on the same day/night, it would have come to the notice of public/locopilot/guard of train/co-passengers and there would have been no occasion where his body could have become prey for animals. Even otherwise, at least in the early morning, it would have come to notice of anybody. Deceased has sustained multiple injuries and some portion of his body has been eaten away by dogs. All these give rise to suspicion. Hence, the Tribunal rightly comes to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative in coming to the conclusion that no substantial material is placed to show that he had traveled and fell down from the train. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error while dismissing the claim petition.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶43

the respective parties and also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal as well as the documents

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶45

placed before the Court, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court is:

¶46

Whether the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger?

¶47

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶48

the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that the claim is made by the claimants stating that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who traveled on 30.10.2012 in the train and same was disputed. In order to prove the claim, the wife of the deceased examined as AW1 wherein she deposed that the deceased had purchased the ticket bue due to heavy rain, it got wet and lost.

¶49

The main reason for coming to such a conclusion by the Tribunal is that the inquest report does not speak about the recovery of ticket or any articles from the body of the deceased and DRM’s report also states

¶50

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶51

that during inquest, no ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased. It is important to note that the claimants have relied upon Ex.R1-DRM’s report wherein admitted the occurrence of incident and expressed a doubt stating that the deceased might have tried to board the running train, slipped and fell down and sustained injuries resulting in his death. Hence, the very contention of the respondent that his death is not on account of railway accident and for other reason, cannot be accepted. Having taken note of the document at Ex.A1-FIR which clearly discloses that the body was found on 31.10.2012 at the distance of 9 k.m. from the Baiyappanahalli railway station and Ex.A2 is the intimation given by the Station Master that 40 years person’s dead body is lying by the side of the track. Ex.A3 is the inquest report and inquest was conducted on the very next date i.e., on 31.10.2012 and though not filed the final report before the Tribunal and the same is available on record and column 17 of the final report discloses that as per the investigation and also as per the statement of witnesses and also the opinion of the doctor

¶52

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶53

that on 30.10.2012, in the evening, the deceased left the house and he boarded the train and due to heavy crowd in the train, accidentally he fell down as a result, he had sustained multiple injuries and he died and the death is an accidental death and this report is given by the SubInspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Bengaluru. Hence, it is clear that the death is on account of accidental death while traveling in the train and the Tribunal failed to consider the document at Ex.A1 and A3 and also Ex.R1. Ex.R1 discloses that there is no any ticket and also expressed that he might have tried to board the running train and no material is placed before the Tribunal with regard to the said aspect is concerned and no detailed discussion was also made by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition and fails to take note of the documents and erroneously comes to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

¶54

The Tribunal also fails to take note of the PM

¶55

report which reveals the opinion of the doctor that death is

¶56

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶57

due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of multiple injuries but the Tribunal erroneously comes to the conclusion that it gives rise to the suspicion only on the ground that body was found on the next morning and the same was not noticed by the public/locopilot/guard of train/co-passengers and the same cannot be a ground to suspect the claim when Tribunal also discussed with regard to the contention taken by the respondent that the respondent has admitted the occurrence of accident but expressed a doubt stating that deceased might have tried to board the running train, slipped and fell down and doubt cannot be a basis to come to a such a conclusion and there must be a evidence before the Tribunal to come to a such conclusion. When the accident is admitted, there cannot be any suspicion and hence, Tribunal committed an error in considering the material available on record in a perspective manner and erroneously comes to the conclusion that doubt rises with regard to the claim is concerned and hence, the very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. Hence, it requires interference of this Court

¶58

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶59

to set aside the finding given by the Tribunal. Hence, I answer the above point as affirmative.

¶60

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

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed.

¶63

(ii) The impugned judgment dated 19.08.2016 passed in OA II U 2/2013 by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. Consequently, the claim application is allowed.

¶64

(iii) The appellants are 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

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:41627 MFA No. 8069 of 2016

¶66

13 -

¶67

Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants shall

¶68

be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶69

(iv) The amount of compensation be satisfied

¶70

by the respondent within a period of eight

¶71

weeks.

¶72

(v) No order as to costs.

¶73

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶74

Smt Emily Jethruth v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Emily Jethruth 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

Sri. G. S. Sudharshan Vs Grama Seva Sangha Trust

Smt Anjana Sundar Vs Sri D P Nagaraj

Mushtaq Ahmed Vs Mrs Rasheeda Farooq

Sri. K. N. Prakash Vs Sri. v. Krishna Murthy

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Usha Devi

Smt Sujatha H N Vs Varun v