Miss Jyothi Vs Union of India

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2016 PASSED IN OA II U 184/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION AND COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the order dated 27.09.2016 passed on O.A.II U 184/2013 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, thereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed.

¶26

The brief facts are that the deceased was a cancer patient and used to come to Bangalore regularly for medical treatment with the aid of railway concessional certificate issued for cancer patients. On 24.09.2013 night at about 8.20 pm., the deceased along with her escort Sarada Bai and two other relatives had been to Yeshwanthpur Railway Station and the deceased

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53357 MFA No. 860 of 2017

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

purchased separate journey tickets for herself and to her escort and also to other two relatives to travel from Yeshwanthpur to Gulbarga. Hence, boarded Train No.22134 –Yeshwanthpur-Solapur Express. When the said train was passing between Khaderpeta-Venkatampalle Railway Stations, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fallen down from the train on the intervening night of 24/25.09.2013 at about 1.00 am., in the midnight and sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.

¶30

The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the reason that the deceased was a cancer patient and she could have been accompanied with an escort and therefore, it is unbelievable that the deceased had fallen from the train and died due to an untoward incident. Also it is observed that the deceased in which coach was travelling is a general compartment, but it is a reserved compartment. Hence, there could not be crowd, so as to fall from the train. Hence, disbelieved the claim of the claimants and dismissed the claim petition.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53357 MFA No. 860 of 2017

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Upon considering the evidence adduced by both

¶34

the parties and also the reasons given by the Tribunal that it is an admitted fact that the deceased was suffering from cancer. The claimants have stated the reasons that as to why the deceased was coming to Bangalore and was going to Gulbarga from Bangalore. The reasons given by the claimants are that, since the deceased was suffering from cancer, therefore, she used to travel to Bangalore for medical treatment. Therefore, the purpose of journey to Bangalore is proved.

¶35

Ex.A.5 is the journey ticket produced by the claimants which proves the fact that the deceased was travelling from Yeshvanthpur, Bangalore to Gulbarga. The only reason given by the Tribunal is that, since the deceased was travelling in a reserved coach, but not in general compartment and there could not have been crowd, so as to fall from the moving train and since the deceased was a cancer patient, hence, it is unbelievable

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:53357 MFA No. 860 of 2017

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

that without attending the deceased, she had been to the door and fallen from the moving train. Hence, on these reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

¶40

The DRM report proves that the deceased dead body was found on the railway track between Khadarpet to Venkatlampalli. Just because, the deceased was suffering from cancer, it does not mean that the deceased was in an immovable health condition. Suffering from cancer is different from disability to move. Though, the deceased was travelling in a reserved coach, but the fact is that the deceased while travelling from the moving train due to jerk and jolt fell from the train and died. This aspect is not considered by the Tribunal correctly. The Tribunal has assumed itself that since the deceased was suffering from cancer, therefore, she was not in a movable condition. This observation of the Tribunal is perverse. Though, a person is suffering from cancer, it does not mean that he/she is in immovable position. Without any contra evidence by the Railway Authorities making assume itself

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53357 MFA No. 860 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

that the deceased was in an immovable position is not correct as it is perverse approach.

¶44

Therefore, when the oral and documentary evidence placed by the claimants prove the fact that the deceased was travelling from Yeshvanthpura to Gulbarga and after purchasing journey ticket, therefore, the deceased is found to be a bonafide passenger and the accident is an untoward accident. Therefore, the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal is not correct. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to set aside.

¶45

The deceased died in the accident on 24.09.2013. Therefore, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:53357 MFA No. 860 of 2017

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others¹ ,

¶50

wherein at paragraph No.23 it is held as under:

¶51

“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.”

¶52

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in

¶53

case where the accident 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

¶54

1 (2023) 6 SCR 329

¶55

8 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:53357 MFA No. 860 of 2017

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶59

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 petition till the date of realization is awarded to the claimants and if this figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants/claimants are entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶60

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The appeal is allowed .

¶63

(ii) The impugned order dated 27.09.2016 passed on O.A.II U 184/2013 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is set aside.

¶64

(iii) The claimants being son and daughter 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 petition till the date of realization. It is also made clear that

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:53357 MFA No. 860 of 2017

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the claimants 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 petition till the date of realization is awarded to the claimants and if this figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants/claimants are entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶68

(iv) No order as to costs.

¶69

(v) Draw decree accordingly.

¶70

(vi) The amount in deposit shall be released in favour of the claimants with equal apportionment.

¶71

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶72

PB

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Miss Jyothi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Jyothi v. 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

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri. K.A. Basheer Ahamed

Sri. C. M. Eshwar Swaroop Vs Sri. Mr. Riyaz Ahmed

National Highway Authority of India, Vs Smt. Rupeena Lewis

Smt. J. Ashwini Vs Sri. K. Manjunatha Reddy

M/S. Markon Developers Vs Smt. S. G. Shruthi

Smt. Channaveeramma Vs Union of India