Dismissed¶43

The Union of India v. Smt. Akkavva

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025MFA/2275/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Railway Claims Tribunal Act Section 23(1); Miscellaneous First Appeal; MFA No. 2275 of 2017; Union of India / South Western Railway, Hubli; Railway Claims Tribunal Bengaluru Bench; OA II U 44/2014; bonafide passenger; journey ticket Pacchappur-Belagavi versus Belgaum-Londa; Ajmer - Yeshwantpur Express; fall from running train between Londa-Gunji Railway Station; AW-2 eyewitness; FIR statement, Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem Report, DRM's report; compensation Rs.4,00,000/-; railway accident; no perversity or illegality; appeal dismissed; High Court of Karnataka; Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar; decided 09.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; the Tribunal's order granting Rs.4,00,000/- compensation to the claimants upheld; pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. ¶43

The Union of India Vs Smt. Akkavva — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the Tribunal's order granting Rs.4,00,000/- compensation to the claimants upheld; pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger holding a valid journey ticket for the relevant stretch, given that the appellant contended the recovered ticket was from Pacchappur to Belagavi while the accident occurred between Londa and Gunju Railway stations. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Upon re-appreciation of the evidence, it cannot be inferred that the deceased did not produce a journey ticket; the eyewitness AW-2 stated that both he and the deceased had purchased journey tickets and had travelled from Belgaum to Londa, supporting the finding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

From the FIR statement, Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem Report and DRM's report, the death of the deceased is found to be due to a railway accident.

¶39

Key takeaways

The Tribunal correctly held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who died in the railway accident and its grant of compensation needs no interference; there is no perversity or illegality in the Tribunal's order, hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No. 2275 of 2017 (under S.23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act), Union of India v. Smt. Akkavva and another (decided 09.10.2025, High Court of Karnataka, Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J.): The Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench judgment dated 14.11.2016 in OA II U 44/2014, which had granted Rs.4,00,000/- compensation to the claimants for the death of Mahesh Kumar, who on 05.11.2013 fell from the running Ajmer - Yeshwantpur Express between Londa-Gunji Railway Station due to heavy rush and jerk and died on the spot. The Union contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger because the recovered journey ticket was from Pacchappur to Belagavi whereas the accident occurred between Londa and Gunju stations. Re-appreciating the evidence, the Court held that it could not be inferred that the deceased had not produced a journey ticket, since eyewitness AW-2 stated that both he and the deceased had purchased journey tickets and travelled from Belgaum to Londa, AW-2 having alighted before the deceased's destination; and from the FIR statement, Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem Report and DRM's report the death was found to be due to a railway accident. Holding that the Tribunal correctly found the deceased to be a bonafide passenger who died in a railway accident, and finding no perversity or illegality in its order, the Court dismissed the appeal and disposed of pending IAs.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2275 OF 2017 (RCT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY HUBLI- 580 020.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANGOWDAR, CGC)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. AKKAVVA WIFE OF LATE MAHESH KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT NOGANIHAL VILLAGE, HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT- 590 001.

¶14

SMT BHARATHI WIFE OF NILLAPPA KOLAKAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT HALASI VILLAGE, KHANPUR TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT- 590 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.TANVEER PASHA.A.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2016 PASSED ON OA II U 44/2014 BY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BENCH, BANGALORE BENCH AND CONSEQUENTIALLY REJECT THE ENTIRE CLAIM APPLICATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/Union of

¶25

India challenging the order dated 14.11.2016 passed in OA II U 44/2014 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), whereby the claim application filed by the applicants was allowed and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that the deceased

¶27

Mahesh Kumar on 05.11.2013, after purchasing ticket from Belgaum to Londa to visit her daughter, boarded the general compartment of Ajmer - Yeshwantpur Express

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

train but during his journey, due to heavy rush and jerk of the train, lost his balance, fell down from the running train in between Londa-Gunji Railway Station and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, respondents herein have filed application for claiming compensation and the Tribunal has allowed the application and granted compensation.

¶31

Being aggrieved by this, the appellant-Union of India has preferred the present appeal by rising various contentions. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as from the records, it is revealed that the deceased has purchased the journey ticket from Pacchappur to Belagavi but for travel from Belagavi to Londa, the ticket was not recovered but the accident was caused in between Londa - Gunju Railway station. Therefore, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Hence, grant of compensation is not correct.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

on the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶35

respondents/claimants submitted that AW-2 is an eye witness that both AW-2 and the deceased had travelled and AW-2 had stepped out from the train before the destination of the deceased and it is the evidence of AW-2 that both the deceased and AW-2 had purchased the journey ticket from Belgaum to Londa and thereafter, AW-2 had stepped out from the train, the accident occurred and he came to know about the accident after 4 days from the date of accident. Therefore, submitted that from the evidence of AW-2, it is proved that the deceased had purchased the journey ticket from Belgaum to Londa and also the fact that the ticket found from the body of the deceased is from Pachapur to Belgaum; to rectify this fact, the deceased had purchased the journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger and this is rightly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, justified the order passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

In the present case, upon considering and re-appreciating the evidence on record, the appellant is not disputing fact that the deceased had purchased the journey ticket from Pachapur to Belgaum. Admittedly, the accident is caused in between the railway stations of Londa to Gunjii, AW-2 is an eye witness accompanied the deceased while travelling and he has stepped out from the train before the destination of the deceased and thereafter the deceased had travelled alone. Therefore, from this evidence, it cannot be inferred that the deceased has not produced journey ticket and the eye witness stated that both the deceased and AW-2 had purchased journey tickets and had travelled from Belgaum to Londa also.

¶39

When this being the evidence revealed and also moreover from the FIR statement, Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem Report and DRM's report, it is found that the death of the deceased is due to railway accident.

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

When this being the fact revealed from the

¶43

evidence on record, the Tribunal is correct in holding that deceased is the bonafide passenger and died in the railway accident; accordingly, granted compensation, which needs no interference. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as there is no perversity and illegality found in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶44

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs' if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶45

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶46

KA/SRA

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

The Union of India v. Smt. Akkavva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. Smt. Akkavva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Karthic T.U. Vs the Office of the Special Officer and Competent Authority

Sri Parashuram Kumar Vs Union of India

H.M. Rechanna Vs H P Mariswamy

Mrs Tamanna Vs M/S Sapna Deepam Developers

Sri Prakash Y Vs Sri M v Mallanna

Sri Abhishek Jindal Vs Smt Indramma