Smt. Mallika Vs the Union of India

Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

The claimants being mother and sister of the

¶25

deceased have challenged the order dated 16.08.2017 passed in OA II U 92/2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal,

¶26

Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) thereby, the claim application filed by the applicants was dismissed.

¶27

It is the case of the applicants that on

¶28

16.10.2014, the deceased while travelling in the Manikuppam Fast Passenger train after purchasing journey ticket bearing No.12347472 to travel from Bengaluru East

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14436 MFA No. 6231 of 2018

¶30

to Marikuppam Railway Station and due to heavy rush in the train, he accidently slipped and fell down from the moving train and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

¶31

The claim application filed by the applicants was dismissed on the reasons that the journey ticket produced by the applicants is a planted ticket and the timings of the inquest panchanama and post mortem report are the same. Therefore, under these suspicious, the application was dismissed.

¶32

Heard the arguments from both sides and

¶33

perused the materials placed on record.

¶34

It is the case of the applicants that on 16.10.2014, the deceased was travelling in the train and after purchasing the journey ticket to travel from Bengaluru East to Marikuppam Railway Station and due to heavy rush in the train, he was standing by the side of the door and accidently slipped and fell down from the moving

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14436 MFA No. 6231 of 2018

¶36

train and died in the accident. Ex.A-1-FIR registered under UDR No.24/2011 dated 17.10.2014 based on the message of the clerk-in-charge/Champion/South Western Railway. Ex.A-2 is the report in which, it is stated that an unknown male person aged about 35 years was found dead on the Railway track. Thereafter, the Divisional Manager has subjected the matter to investigation and reported that the deceased was found on the Railway Track with a journey ticket; Ex.A-3 is the inquest report. Ex.A-4 is the copy of the computerized journey ticket bearing No.12347472 dated 16.10.2014 and Ex.A-5 is the post mortem report.

¶37

All these documentary evidence prove the fact that the deceased died in the railway accident. The Tribunal raised suspicious on the reason that the inquest panchanama and post mortam report were conducted parallelly and more or less at the same time therefore, raised one of the suspicious grounds. However, considering the inquest panchanama, which was

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14436 MFA No. 6231 of 2018

¶39

conducted for two and half hours from 10:00 am to 2:30 pm and post mortem was conducted from 11:00 am to 2:30 pm. When this being the fact, the post mortem report examination and inquest panchanama were conducted in a natural course of time in the hospital therefore, suspicious raised by the Tribunal in this regard is wholly unsustainable. Further, the applicants produced computerized journey ticket bearing No.12347472 dated 16.10.2014 as per Ex.A-4, but the Tribunal raised suspicious that it is a planted ticket without basis when the ticket and as per the DRM’s report, it was found in the pocket of the deceased’s body. Therefore, this suspicious raised by the Tribunal is not correct and wholly unsustainable. Hence, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in dismissing the claim application therefore, the order and award passed by the Tribunal is set aside.

¶40

It is proved that the deceased died in the

¶41

Railway accident on 16.10.2014. Therefore, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded along with interest at the rate

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14436 MFA No. 6231 of 2018

¶43

of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶44

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others¹ , wherein at paragraph No.23 it is held as under:

¶45

“23. Accordingly, and as per above discussion we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed by the High Court and also the Claims Tribunal dated 29.06.2017. Consequently, claim application is allowed. The appellants are held 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 realisation. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondents within a period of eight weeks. No order as to costs.”

¶46

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in case

¶47

the accident was occurred in the year 2003 and awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest from the date of petition till the date of realization and also it is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the

¶48

1(2023)6 SCR 329

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14436 MFA No. 6231 of 2018

¶50

final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the applicants are entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the present case also, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of claim application till the date of realization is awarded to the applicants and if this figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the applicants are entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶51

11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶54

ii. The impugned judgment dated 18.04.2018 passed in claim application No.O.A II U 92/2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, is set aside.

¶55

iii. The applicants being mother and sister of the deceased are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of claim application till the date of realization.

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14436 MFA No. 6231 of 2018

¶57

iv. It is also made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the applicants are entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the present case also, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from thedate of application till the date of realization is awarded to the applicants and if this figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants are entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶58

v. No order as to costs.

¶59

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶60

SRA

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt. Mallika v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mallika v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thippavva @ Thippamma Vs the Union of India

Sri C D Raghavendra Vs Smt Uma Srinivasan R

Sri. Sreenivasa @ Prakash Vs Sri. Venkatasubhaiah

Sri. Thimmappa @ Thimmaiah Vs Smt. Rajamma

Sri.Krishnappa Vs Smt Bharathi Chandrashekar

Sri. K. Balakrishna Rao Vs State of Karnataka