Allowed

Sri Ramachandra v. Union of India

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2024MFA/895/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a statutory appeal filed by a passenger against the Railway Claims Tribunal's order dismissing his compensation claim for injuries sustained while falling from a train. The Court set aside the Tribunal's rejection based on contrived grounds and evidentiary contradictions, granting Rs.40,000 as compensation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 9% per annum.

Sri Ramachandra Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:14289 MFA No. 895 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 895 OF 2019 (RCT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O SHEKAPPA PUTTAPPA PUTTANNANAVAR, AGE 30 YEARS, R/O BIDARAKOPPA, HANAGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.M.G.CONTRACTOR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.JAGADEESHGOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ADITYA SINGH, CGC)

¶15

THIS MFA FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 20.12.2017, PASSED IN CLAIM APPLICATION NO.OA II U 003/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION AS PER FINDINGS AND SPEAKING ORDER IN THE FOREGOING PARAS.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:14289 MFA No. 895 of 2019

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging an order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru bench in O.A.No.II U 003/2014, by which, his claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, was rejected.

¶21

The claimant filed a claim petition claiming of Rs.10,00,000/- damages for the injuries suffered while travelling in a train on 08.04.2012 between Harihara and Ranebennur. He claimed that, he had travelled by train on 08.04.2012 to Bhati village of Davanagere to distribute wedding invitation cards of his marriage. After distributing the cards, he purchased a ticket to return back to his village from Harihara to Ranebennur. When he was so travelling, he accidentally fell down between Ranebennur and Kumarpattanam and lost consciousness. Some passers by shifted him to Harihara Government Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Chigateri District Hospital and from there to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, where he

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14289 MFA No. 895 of 2019

¶23

was treated from 08.04.2012 to 20.04.2012. Since he did not regain consciousness, he was shifted to SSIMS & RC at Davanagere, where he was treated. Based on the information furnished by Government Hospital, Harihara MLC was recorded in C.Misc.No.28/2012 by the railway police. He therefore claimed that he suffered injuries in an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railway Act, 1989 and hence claimed that he was entitled to be compensated.

¶24

The claim petition was opposed by the respondent, who claimed that, there was no cause of action for making claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, as the incident alleged by the claimant was not an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railway Act, 1989. The respondent contended that, the claimant was bound to prove that the injuries suffered was not a self inflicted injury or not a criminal cut by the claimant when he was intoxicated. The respondent denied that the claimant had travelled from

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:14289 MFA No. 895 of 2019

¶27

Harihara to Ranebennur on 08.04.2012 and that he suffered injuries while travelling in the train. It contended that there was no passenger train from Harihara to Ranebennur. It claimed that there was no 200 meters high bridge between Harihara to Ranebennur, where the claimant allegedly fell. Based on these contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial.

¶28

The claimant was examined as AW.1 and he

¶29

marked Exs.A.1 to 15, of which, Ex.A.6 was the ticket from Haveri to Harihara and Harihara to Ranebennur dated 08.04.2012. The respondent did not enter the witness box, but marked a copy of the statutory investigation done by the Divisional Railway Manager as Ex.R.1. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the documents produced by the claimant were contradictory as he could not recollect the exact date and time when he fell from the train. It held that there was no evidence to show who shifted the claimant to the hospital at Harihara. It held that though the tickets were recovered and

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14289 MFA No. 895 of 2019

¶31

produced by the applicant as Ex.A.6, the medical documents produced by him indicated the date of incident as 09.04.2012 and the time of incident was mentioned as 9.15 am, 1.10 pm, 8.10 pm. It held that this contradictory version generated doubt about the version of claimant. It held that mere recovery of a ticket did not help the claimant in establishing that the injuries suffered by him was due to a fall from the train while travelling on 08.04.2012. Consequently, it rejected the claim petition.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the said order, the claimant

¶33

has filed this statutory appeal. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the Tribunal has rejected the petition on thoroughly specious grounds. He contends that Ex.A.7 is the admission intimation by Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere which recorded that the claimant had fallen down from a moving train. He contended that this document established beyond doubt that the claimant suffered injuries in an “untoward incident”. He contended that DRM’s report marked as Ex.R.1 supported the case of

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:14289 MFA No. 895 of 2019

¶36

the claimant. Therefore, he contended that the claimant be compensated suitably. The learned Central Government Counsel contended that there were several contradictions in the case of the claimant which generated suspicion about the claim made. He referred to several such contradictions and contended that the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation.

¶37

The claimant claimed that he was travelling to

¶38

Davanagere from Harihara to distribute cards for his wedding scheduled on 25.04.2012 and after distributing the cards to his relatives he purchased a ticket to travel from Harihara back to Ranebennur. The report of the Divisional Railway Manager shows that the deceased did not come under the wheels of the train, but fell off the train and lost consciousness. The fact that he was admitted to the hospital on the same day at Harihara Hospital from where he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere establishes the fact that he suffered injuries while travelling in the train. The production of the journey

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:14289 MFA No. 895 of 2019

¶41

tickets established beyond doubt that the claimant had travelled by the train on 08.04.2012. Since, the respondent did not examine any of its officials to doubt the contention of the claimant, the tribunal committed an error in disputing the claim of the claimant on surmises and conjectures. There was no reason why the claim petition could not be entertained. The finding of the tribunal is utterly perverse and based on assumptions and warrants interference. Hence, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/-. The respondent shall pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

GSR:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri Ramachandra v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramachandra 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

Smt. Thimmajamma Vs Sri. Kariyappa @ Kariyanna

Shri Manjunath K Vs Shri H R Ravichandra

Smt Nannibee Vs Smt Gangamma

Sri Haji Mokhthar Mahothu Vs Siddagangappa

Mrs. Gowramma Vs Mrs. a. C. Sharadamma

Smt Aruna Vs Samuel Varughese