Allowed

Smt Pushpa L C v. Union of India

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2024MFA/892/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appealing the Railway Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a death claim, the High Court set aside the order. The court held that a recovered ticket proved bona fide passenger status, the futility of investigation excuses the respondent, and rejected speculative defenses against the claim.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order; direct compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 plus 6% per annum interest, subject to appellate ceiling provisions; direct 25% deposit and equal release of balance.

Smt Pushpa L C Vs Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12719 MFA No. 892 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 892 OF 2019 (RCT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PUSHPA L.C. W/O. LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGE 38 YEARS

¶8

SRI. VIKASA A.B. S/O. LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGE 13 YEARS

¶9

SRI. KARTHIK A.B. S/O. LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGE 11 YEARS

¶10

SINCE APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND HENCE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL

¶11

GUARDIAN - APPELLANT NO.1)

¶12

SRI. A. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA, AGE 70 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ALL ARE R/O. ALUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-581145.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA G. CONTRACTOR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. ADITYA SINGH, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:12719 MFA No. 892 of 2019

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2018 PASSED IN OA.NO.II U 219/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF RCT ACT, 1987.

¶24

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The appellants were the claimants in Claim Application No.OA II U 219/2015 before the Railway Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) claiming compensation for the accidental death of Basavarajappa.

¶27

It is the case of the claimants that the deceased - Basavarajappa who was a resident of Alur village in Channagiri taluk, Davanagere district, had been to Kadur near Chikkajajur to perform pooja at Veerabadreshwara temple on 29.09.2015. They claimed that after performing pooja, he visited their relative at Kodaganur village near Chikkajajur. He boarded the Bengaluru - Hubballi passenger train at Chikkajajur railway station. When he was about to alight near Kodaganur, he fell down, as he was jolted by a jerk of the train. They claimed that he suffered injuries and died at the spot. They claimed that a gangman intimated the incident to the nearest railway station

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12719 MFA No. 892 of 2019

¶29

and deceased was shifted to Chigateri Government Hospital, where an inquest was conducted in UDR No.67/2015. They claimed that since the death of Basavarajappa was published in Vijayakarnataka (daily) news paper, they came to know about the death and rushed to the railway police station and identified the body in the mortuary. They claimed that the deceased Basavarajappa was a bonafide passenger travelling in the train

¶30

and that he fell down accidentally and died due to the injuries suffered and therefore they were entitled to be compensated. Hence, they filed a claim petition claiming compensation from the respondent.

¶31

The claim petition was opposed by the respondent on various grounds.

¶32

The Tribunal after recording the evidence of claimant No.1 rejected the claim petition on the ground that: (i) the deceased had informed the claimant No.1 that he would return the same evening on 29.09.2015 but the claimant No.1 claimed that she came to know about the death of Basavarajappa through news paper and that she did not make any efforts to trace his whereabouts. The tribunal held that this generated suspicion about the veracity of the statement given

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:12719 MFA No. 892 of 2019

¶35

by claimant No.1 before the police as well as before the tribunal; (ii) that if the deceased was thrown out of the train, when he was trying to alight from the train at Kodaganaur, he could not have fallen on the track and could not have suffered injuries, more particularly, the one found in the inquest; (iii) that there was no curvature in the railway line at the place where the body of the deceased was found. If the rail line had a curvature, then it could quite be possible that the body could be dragged inside the track, as a result of momentum of fall. Being aggrieved by the said order, the claimants are before this Court in this statutory appeal.

¶36

The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the deceased was not the resident of Kodganuru village but was a resident of Alur village, Chikkajajur Taluk, Davanagere district. He submitted that at the time of inquest, the police had recovered a journey ticket which shows that the deceased had boarded the Bengaluru - Hubballi passenger train and that he fell down from the train and suffered injuries. He contended that in the absence of any contra evidence, to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, he contended that the tribunal could not have rejected the claim petition on mere

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12719 MFA No. 892 of 2019

¶38

assumptions. He submitted that no investigation was done by the respondent to identify the cause of death and therefore, the tribunal could not have assumed that the deceased could not have fallen on the track and could not have died due to the injuries.

¶39

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that statement of the claimant No.1 made it doubtful whether the deceased had travelled in the train on the fateful day. He contends that it is a matter of commonsense that if a person is travelling on the footboard of the train or if he is trying to alight from the train, he cannot come down under the train, unless the train is at a high speed. He submits that the train was reaching the station at Kodaganur village and therefore, it could not have been moving at a high speed. Thus on all grounds, he contended that there was a suspicion regarding the manner of accident and therefore the claimants were not entitled to any compensation.

¶40

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶41

learned counsel for the claimants as well as the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:12719 MFA No. 892 of 2019

¶44

The death of Basavarajappa on a railway track was reported by a gangman of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent soon after coming to know about the incident, must have conducted a statutory investigation and must have identified the reason behind the death. The respondent did nothing, but banked upon certain inconsistencies in the evidence of claimant No.1 and assumptions that the deceased could not have come under the train, to deny the claim of the claimants. The inquest mahazar disclosed that the deceased was carrying a journey ticket and had boarded the Bengaluru - Hubbli passenger train at Chikkajajur railway station. This was sufficient to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train. The fact that his body was found on the track of train, made it probable that he slipped or fell from the train due to some reason and came under the wheels of the train. This being an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 the claimants could not be deprived of the compensation prescribed under the Act, on an assumption that the deceased could not have fallen on the track while travelling in a moving train.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:12719 MFA No. 892 of 2019

¶47

In that view of the matter the order passed by the tribunal warrants interference and claimants are entitled to be compensated.

¶48

Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 passed in Claim Application No.OA II U 219/2015 by the tribunal is set aside. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation. However, if the compensation and interest does not exceed a sum of Rs,8,00,000/- the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation, but if the compensation and interest exceeds a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, they shall be entitled to actual compensation as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi - (2019) 3 SCC 572. Upon deposit, 25% of the compensation and accrued interest shall be deposited in each of the names of claimants and remaining shall be released to the claimants in equal proportions.

¶49

Before parting from the case, though many claims

¶50

are made against the respondent for compensation due to death and injury to passengers in untoward incidents, the

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:12719 MFA No. 892 of 2019

¶52

respondent seem unconcerned to take steps to prevent such incidents. The respondent has a duty to ensure that those travelling in the train reach their destination safely and towards this, it should not leave any stone unturned. It cannot glass over this thinking that installing safety features across all trains may burn its pockets. If the respondent can ensure that there is no discharge from lavatories at the stations, it is sad that it has not thought of devising a method to ensure that passengers do not "accidentally slip" or "fall off" from a train. A simple mechanism by ensuring that the doors of a train open only at stations after it stops and leaves the stations after the doors close, can avert any untoward incident. Similarly, all such claim petitions are sought to be defended on the ground that a passenger "slipping" or "falling" from a train cannot go under the wheels of a train and or that it could be a case of attempted suicide or a self inflicted injury or that a dead person is placed on the track etc. All these defences are based on conjectures and surmises and the statutory investigation accident report under Sections 113 or 114 of the Railways Act, 1989 is archaic and mundane and does not help the respondent in establishing its defence. The respondent is therefore bound to adopt technology to detect objects lying on a railway track such as

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:12719 MFA No. 892 of 2019

¶54

installing a single shot detection device or an image sensor etc. This could help the Court in detecting false claims and at the same time safeguard the interest of the respondent. The respondent cannot compromise these issues due to commercial considerations/constraints but it must evolve and manage its business professionally. This Court optimistically hopes that the concerned would take cognizance expressed above and act diligently.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Smt Pushpa L C v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pushpa L C 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

Sri. Rajappa Vs Sri. Yallappa

Smt. B.N. Umadevi Vs Sri. Rajanna M

B M Munivenkatappa Since Dead Rep. by His Lrs Vs Munivenkatappa Since Dead by Lrs

Smt Shivamma Vs Mr Taraknath Goswami

Sri. Shankar Vs Sri. Muniyappa

Smt Renukamma Vs Union of India