Smt. N. Rathna Vs the Union of India

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2023 PASSED IN OA (II U) SBC 0042/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987.

¶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

The appellants being the wife, son, daughter and mother of deceased has filed application under Section 16 of the Railway Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at 12%p.a. from the date of claim petition till its payment on account of death of deceased in a railway accident that occurred on 15.11.2017.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

It is the case of the claimant that the deceased

¶31

on 15.11.2017 went to Davanagere Railway Station and procured a journey ticket and boarded Bangalore-Hubli Passenger Train and when the train reached near Byadagi Railway Station and moved towards Haveri Railway Station, due to heavy rush and thrust of passenger, the deceased stumble and fell down from the train due to which he sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. Therefore, the claimants being the wife, son, daughter and mother of deceased have filed application seeking compensation. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim application on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

¶32

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DOLI RANI SAHA VS. UNION OF INDIA¹ in paragraph No.13

¶33

has held as under:

¶34

"13. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen

¶35

1 ( 2024) 9 SCC 656

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Rina Deva (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court is reproduced below:

¶39

"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."

¶40

The judgment of this Court in the case of

¶41

MAHABOOB SAB & ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA²

¶42

in paragraphs No.12 & 17 has held as under:

¶43

"12. Per contra, Railways are claiming that it is not an untoward incident, but it is self-inflicted injury as contemplated under Section 124(a) Proviso (b). In view of these rival contentions, it would be necessary to examine the contentions raised by claimants before Tribunal in claim petition and evidence tendered by claimants, which is to the following effect: That the petitioners No.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased Shahnawaz hereinafter called the

¶44

22010 SCC OnLine Kar 5098

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

deceased. The deceased was travelling Train No.1014 as a bona fide passenger. The deceased fell of from the train at Yelahanka Railway station, due to the huge jerk in the train. The deceased had suffered multiple injuries. The deceased was taken to Victoria Hospital for treatment and admitted as indoor patient. The duty doctors attended the deceased and offered all possible treatment to save the life of deceased. But the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 06.09.2003.

¶48

17. The fact that Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation cannot be lost sight of by this Court and it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and purposeful construction of an enactment is one, which gives effect of legislative intent. Particularly when such beneficial legislation is called in question, it should receive a liberal interpretation and applying a strained interpretation would defeat the legislative purpose for which enactment is brought about."

¶49

5. In the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. RINA

¶50

DEVA³ , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

¶51

"Re: (ii) Application of Principle of Strict Liability - Concept of Self Inflicted Injury

¶52

16.1. From the judgments cited at the Bar we do not see any conflict on the applicability of the principle of strict liability. Sections 124 and Section 124A provide that compensation is payable whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the railway administration in the case of an accident or in the case of an 'untoward incident'. Only exceptions are those provided under proviso to Section 124A. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 383) (supra) it was held that Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Where principle of strict liability applies, proof of negligence is not required. This principle has been reiterated in Jameela (AIR 2010 SC 3705) (supra).

¶53

16.2. Coming to the proviso to Section 124A to the effect that no compensation is payable if passenger dies or suffers injury due to the situations mentioned therein, there is no difficulty as regards suicide or attempted suicide in which case no compensation may be payable. Conflict of opinions in High

¶54

3 AIR 2018 SC 2362

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Courts has arisen on understanding the expression 'self inflicted injury' in the proviso. In some decisions it has been held that injury or death because of negligence of the victim was at par with self inflicted injury. We may refer to the decisions of High Courts of Kerala in Joseph PT (AIR 2014 SC Ker 12) (supra), Bombay in Pushpa (supra) and Delhi in Shayam Narayan (supra) on this point.

¶58

16.3. In Joseph PT (AIR 2014 Ker 12) (supra), the victim received injuries in the course of entering a train which started moving. Question was whether his claim that he had suffered injuries in an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c) could be upheld or whether he was covered by proviso to Section 124A clause (b). The High Court held that while in the case of suicide or attempt to commit suicide, intentional act is essential. Since the concept of 'self inflicted injury' is distinct from an attempted suicide, such intention is not required and even without such intention if a person acts negligently, injuries suffered in such an accident will amount to 'self inflicted injury'. Relevant observations are:

¶59

"Therefore, the two limbs of the Proviso should be construed to have two different objectives to be achieved. We can understand the meaning of the term "self-inflicted injury" not only from the sources provided by the dictionaries, but also from the context in which it is used in the statute. The term "self-inflicted injury" used in the statute can be deduced as one which a person suffers on account of one's own action, which is something more than a rash or negligent act. But it shall not be an intentional act of attempted suicide. While there may be cases where there is intention to inflict oneself with injury amounting to self-inflicted injury, which falls short of an attempt to commit suicide, there can also be cases where, irrespective of intention, a person may act with total recklessness, in that, he may throw all norms of caution to the wind and regardless to his age, circumstances, etc. act to his detriment. Facts of this case show that the appellant attempted to board a moving train from the off side unmindful of his age and fully aware of the positional disadvantageous and dangers of boarding a train from a level lower than the footboard of the train. It is common knowledge that the footboard and handrails at the doors of the compartment are designed to suit the convenience of the passengers for boarding from and alighting to the platform. And at the same time, when a person is trying to board the train from the nonplatform side, he will be standing on the heap of rubbles kept beneath the track and that too in a lower

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

level. Further more, he will have to stretch himself to catch the handrails and struggle to climb up through the footboard hanging beneath the bogie. The probability of danger is increased in arithmetic progression when the train is moving. Visualising all these things in mind, it can only be held that the act of the appellant was the height of carelessness, imprudence and foolhardiness. It is indisputable that the purpose of Section 124A of the Act is to provide a speedy remedy to an injured passenger or to the dependants of a deceased passenger involved in an untoward incident. Section 124A of the Act provides for compensation to a passenger or his dependants who suffers injury or death, as the case may be, in an untoward incident even where the untoward incident is not the consequence of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of Railway Administration. to this extent, it can be said to be a no-fault liability. Even though the provisions relating to payment of compensation in the Act can be said to be a piece a beneficial legislation, it cannot be stretched too much to reward a person who acts callously, unwisely or imprudently. There is no provision of law brought to our notice permitting the passengers to entrain from the non-platform side of the railway track. However, the counsel for the respondent did not show any provision of law prohibiting the same. The question whether an act by which a passenger sustains injury while boarding a train through the off side, is a selfinflicted injury or not depends on the facts of each case. Merely because a person suffered injury in the process of getting into the train through the off side, it may not be sufficient to term it as a selfinflicted injury, unless the facts and circumstances show that his act was totally imprudent, irrational, callous and unmindful of the consequences. All the facts and circumstances established in this case would show that the act of the appellant was with full knowledge of the imminent possibility of dangering his life or limb and therefore, it squarely comes within the term "self-inflicted injury" defined in Section 124A Proviso (b) of the Act."

¶63

16.4. In Pushpa (supra) a hawker died in the course of boarding a train. It was held that he was not entitled to compensation as it was a case of 'self inflicted injury'. The relevant observations are:

¶64

"Such an attempt by a hawker has been viewed by the trial Court as something amounting to criminal negligence on his part and also an effort to inflict

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

injuries to himself. The trial Court reasoned that if the deceased had to sell his goods by boarding a train, he should have ensured to do so only when it was quite safe for him to get on to the train or otherwise he could have avoided catching the train and waited for another train to come. It also hinted that there was absolutely no compulsion or hurry for the deceased in the present case to make an attempt to somehow or the other board the train while it was gathering speed."

¶68

16.5. In Shyam Narayan (2017 AAC 1833 (Del.)(supra), same view was taken which is as follows:

¶69

"6(ii) I cannot agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellants/applicants in the facts of the present case because there is a difference between an untoward incident and an act of criminal negligence. Whereas negligence will not disentitle grant of compensation under the Railways Act, however, once the negligence becomes a criminal negligence and selfinflicted injury then compensation cannot be granted. This is specifically provided in the first proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act which provides that compensation will not be payable in case the death takes place on account of suicide or attempted suicide, self inflicted injury, bona fide passenger's own criminal act or an act committed by the deceased in the state of intoxication or insanity."

¶70

16.6. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of 'self inflicted injury' would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on 'no fault theory'. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar 2017 (13) SCALE 652 : (AIR 2017 SC 5710) laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on 'no fault theory' under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an 'untoward incident' entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor."

¶71

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Upon considering the evidence on record,

¶74

Smt. Rathna, wife of deceased has submitted her affidavit and examined and cross-examined as AW.1 and deposed that her husband had left her aunt's house i.e. from Kotturu to Harihara Railway Station and there is no eyewitness to state that her husband has gone to Harihara Railway Station and procured journey ticket and travelled in the train and nobody saw the deceased falling from train. Further, she deposed that on the spot pan card, driving licence and other departmental documents pertaining to deceased were received except journey ticket and some other documents and the said ticket was lost in the accident.

¶75

Further, in the DRM report, it is mentioned that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as there is no recovery of journey ticket from his body during inquest and the body of the deceased was found 10 ft from the running track. Just because the railway ticket was not found in the body of the deceased, it cannot be said that

¶76

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the reason assigned by the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger is not correct. This observation is completely perverse in nature and there is no mandate to examine the eyewitness in case of railway accidents. Hence, on consideration of this case on all its preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that the death of deceased is due to fall from train and just because the journey ticket is not found in the body of the deceased, is not a ground to say that the deceased was not travelling as a bonafide passenger. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal is not correct in dismissing the application and the judgment passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶79

REGARDING COMPENSATION :

¶80

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others⁴ , wherein at paragraph No.23 it is held as under:

¶81

4 (2023) 6 SCR 329

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

“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.”

¶86

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶87

KAMUKAYI AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND

¶88

OTHERS⁵ has observed at paragraph No.22, which reads

¶89

as follows:

¶90

“22 . The said judgment was further explained by this Court in Radha Yadav⁶ , relevant para 11 is reproduced as thus:

¶91

“11. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi⁷ is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the

¶92

5 (2023) 19 SCC 116

¶93

6 Union of India V. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410

¶94

7 Union of India V. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572

¶95

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures would be the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000 the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration.”

¶98

Therefore, as per this order, if the

¶99

compensation amount awarded with interest exceeds a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, then the compensation would be in terms of figure excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the present case also, the accident occurred is before 01.01.2017. Hence, by granting award of Rs.4,00,000/-

¶100

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, if it exceeds Rs.8,00,000/-, then the said exceeded amount shall be given to the appellants/claimants. If the final figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶103

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶104

ORDER

¶105

(i) Miscellaneous First Appeal allowed .

¶106

(ii) The impugned judgment dated 26.06.2023 passed in Claim Application No. OA (II U) SBC0042/2019 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶107

(iii) The applicants being wife, son, daughter and mother are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and if it exceeds Rs.8,00,000/- then such exceeded amount shall be paid to the appellants/applicants

¶108

14 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

and if the final amount comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants/ applicants are entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶112

(iv) The entire amount shall be released in favour of appellants/applicants on proper identification.

¶113

(v) No order as to costs.

¶114

(vi) Draw the award accordingly.

¶115

(vii) The respondent/Railway Authorities shall disburse and deposit the compensation amount after receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶116

(viii) Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the Railway Claims Tribunal forthwith.

¶117

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶118

SSD

¶119

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

¶120

15 -

¶121

NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SMT. N. RATHNA AND OTHERS VS. THE UNION OF INDIA]

¶124

29.10.2025

¶125

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶126

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶127

ORAL ORDER ON ' FOR BEING SPOKEN TO'

¶128

This Court on 23.09.2025 has allowed the appeal.

¶129

In the present case, the accident is dated 15.11.2017 the revised schedule of compensation came into force with effect from 01.01.2017 by enhancing the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, paragraph No.10 of the order is deleted and inserted as follows:

¶130

"In the present case, the accident occurred on 15.11.2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of accident till realization.

¶131

Accordingly, paragraph No.10 is modified".

¶132

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:38209 MFA No. 7934 of 2023

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

Consequently, in the operative portion of the order in

¶135

page No.13, sub-clause (iii) is modified as follows:

¶136

The claimants/appellants being wife, son, daughter and mother of the deceased, are awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,000/with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization.

¶137

Accordingly, sub clause (iii) shall be deleted and

¶138

inserted by the above order.

¶139

This order is part and parcel of the judgment dated 23.09.2025.

¶140

Registry is directed to furnish the free copy of the order to both sides.

¶141

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶142

PSJ