Smt Sharada Naik Vs Union of India

THIS MFA FILED U/S.23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DT.01.08.2024 PASSED IN CLAIM APPLICATION NO.OA (II U)/SBC/0044/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION ON CONTEST.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:48436 MFA No. 7083 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

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

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants challenging the judgment and order dated 01.08.2024 passed in Claim Application No.OA (II U)/SBC/0044/2022 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru¹ , thereby, the claim application filed by the applicants was dismissed on the reason that the deceased had purchased ordinary journey tickets of 2^nd class to travel from Hubli to Bagalakot, but boarded HubballiMysore Hampi Express train.

¶26

It is the case of the appellants/applicants that

¶27

the deceased in order to travel from Hubballi to Bagalkot,

¶28

1 hereinafter referred to as 8the Tribunal9 for short

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48436 MFA No. 7083 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

had purchased two ordinary journey tickets for two adults bearing No.AOA-39984584 on 13.12.2019 issued at 18:33 hrs. (6:33 p.m.), but the deceased had travelled in the train bearing No.16591 - Hubballi-Mysore mail/express train and due to jolt and jerk, an untoward incident occurred. Hence, the appellants/applicants, being father and mother of the deceased have filed the claim application, which was dismissed.

¶32

The reason assigned by the Tribunal is that the deceased had purchased two ordinary journey tickets bearing No.AOA-39984584 to travel from Hubballi to Bagalakot on 13.12.2019 and tickets were issued at 18:33 hrs. (6:33 p.m.), and the journey tickets were second class ordinary general tickets and he was supposed to travel in passenger train, but boarded the train bearing No.16591 3 Hubballi - Mysore Hampi Express, which is mail/express train. Hence, the deceased was not supposed to travel in the said express train, but travelled and died. Therefore, the Tribunal has formed an opinion that the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48436 MFA No. 7083 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the time and place of the accident differed; hence, dismissed the claim application.

¶36

The reasoning given by the Tribunal is completely illegal, unjustified and not having any practical approach, even what is expected from a layman. Ex.A-5 is the certified computerized journey tickets recovered from the body of the deceased, which is not disputed. As per rules and also the mention made in the journey ticketsEx.A-5, a passenger, after purchasing the journey ticket has to commence his journey within 3 hours or departure of first train. The deceased had purchased the ordinary journey tickets at evening 6:33 p.m., and the commencement of journey by the train perhaps may be 9:00 p.m. or 9:30 p.m. from Hubli Railway Station.

¶37

According to the learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India, the train in which the deceased had boarded i.e., Hubballi - Mysore Hampi Express, is not

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48436 MFA No. 7083 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

scheduled to go Bagalkot Railway station, but the deceased had travelled in the said train. Therefore, the deceased had boarded the different train. Hence, according to his submission, the deceased is not a bona fide passenger. This argument cannot be accepted.

¶41

Also, the reasons given by the Tribunal are completely unjustifiable, absurd, capricious and illegal. It is not disputed that as per Ex.A-5, the deceased had purchased two ordinary journey tickets, which is recovered from the body of the deceased; therefore, it is proved that the deceased had purchased two ordinary journey tickets. The only mistake committed by the deceased according to the Tribunal is that the deceased had boarded a different train; even if, just because, the deceased had boarded different train that cannot be a ground to say that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger even in mail/express train, there is scope for passengers to travel who have purchased ordinary tickets; hence, it is proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Except for

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48436 MFA No. 7083 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the above mentioned reasons, the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons to dismiss the claim application.

¶45

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the reasons given by the Tribunal are not correct. Hence, it is proved that the deceased is found to be a bona fide passenger. Accordingly, the claim application is liable to be allowed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, is set aside.

¶46

This Court, in innumerable appeals filed before

¶47

this Court has experienced that the Tribunal9s approach while deciding the claim applications is not found to be having human approach. It is the experience of this Court that the Railway Claims Tribunal on very trivial reasons is going to dismiss the claim application, as the said reasons are not sustainable at all. In these types of cases, the claim applications are to be tried as per the principles of assessing the evidence on the theory of preponderance of probabilities, but the Railway Claims Tribunals are

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48436 MFA No. 7083 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

adopting while deciding the cases, as if it is a session case and considering the evidence beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the Railway Claims Tribunal shall have to assess and appreciate evidence on the theory of preponderance of probabilities, but not adopting the theory of beyond reasonable doubts, as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions.

¶51

Hence, the deceased is proved to be a bona fide passenger. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the appellants/applicants are liable to compensation for having lost their son in the Railway accident. Therefore, as per the schedule issued by the Ministry of Railways Doubles Compensation Rate Payable to Railway Victims w.e.f. 01.01.2017, the appellants/applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of accident till realization. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶52

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:48436 MFA No. 7083 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶57

ii. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2024 passed in Claim Application No.OA (II U)/SBC/0044/2022 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶58

iii. The appellants/applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

¶59