Smt Mithilish Kumari @ Rekhadevi Vs Union of Inida

THIS MFA FILED U/S 23 RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2020 PASSED IN O A II (U) NO.38/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the

¶28

order dated 24.06.2022 passed in OA II (U) No.38/2020 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40729 MFA No. 6689 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

It is the case of the claimants that on 10.04.2019 at about 21.10 hours the deceased who was working at Bangalore was travelling from Mandya to KSR Bangalore by Mysore-Bangalore Kaveri Express Train No.22681 holding journey ticket bearing No.19661745 dated 10.04.2019. While he was boarding the train at Mandya Railway Station, the train suddenly started moving and due to push and pull of passengers, the deceased lost control and fell down and sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to the Mandya Medical Sciences Institution and Teaching Hospital and thereafter he was referred to Victoria hospital, Bangalore, but he was declared dead at 1.00 am on 11.04.2019. Therefore, the claimants being the wife and children of the deceased have filed the application for compensation, but it is dismissed on the reason that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, hence, dismissed the claim petition.

¶32

Upon perusal of the evidence on record, 1^st

¶33

claimant who is the wife of the deceased is examined as

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40729 MFA No. 6689 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

P.W.1 and deposing the evidence that her husband had

¶37

travelled in the train from Mandya to Bangalore on 10.04.2019 after purchasing journey ticket. The FIR, spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, DRM report, death certificate and witnesses go to prove that the deceased died in the railway accident. During conducting inquest panchanama, journey ticket was found from the body of the deceased. The only reason given by the Tribunal is that the train arrived at 20.54 hours and departed at 20.56 hours and time of purchasing the ticket is shown at 21.01 hours. The train left the Mandya Station at 21.03 hours and the deceased tried to board the moving train and this is the only reason given by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim application.

¶38

This observation made by the Tribunal is completely erroneous and unwarranted and this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal just with an intention to reject the claim application has passed such order and rejected the claim petition. Therefore, when it is proved

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40729 MFA No. 6689 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

that the deceased was found with the journey ticket and might have tried to board the train at the last moment and due to which lost balance and fell down and sustained injuries and died. Therefore, the Tribunal is completely erroneous in rejecting the claim application. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is found to be erroneous and perverse. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

¶42

The accident is occurred on 10.04.2019.

¶43

Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶44

Hence, I proceed to pass the following

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶47

ii. The order dated 24.06.2020 passed in OA II (U) No.38/2020 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is hereby set aside.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40729 MFA No. 6689 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

iii. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶51

iv. The entire amount shall be released in favour of the appellants/claimants equally.

¶52

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶53

PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Smt Mithilish Kumari @ Rekhadevi v. Union of Inida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mithilish Kumari @ Rekhadevi v. Union of Inida

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

The Executive Engineer Vs B N Chaluvegowda

Sri M L Shankar Vs Dr B C Kalmath

M/S Axis Capstone Realty LLP Vs Sri Hanumaiah M

Smt Pushpa Alias Pushpavathi Vs Sri M L Narayanaswamy

Smt. Jyoti D Bandi Vs Sri. Gulam Mustafa

Sri. a C Ananthaswamy Vs Nandhi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited