The Union of India Vs Kanavi Abdul Khadar @ Khadar Sab

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2017 PASSED IN IA II U 171/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM 10.04.2014 TILL THE DATE OF AWARD AND THEREAFTER 9% P.A. TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT.

¶36

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

¶37

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14220 MFA No. 9647 of 2017

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the

¶42

Union of India represented by General Manager of South Western Railway against the order dated 13.04.2017 in OA.II.U.171/2013 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (for short 'the tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the RCT Act') read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short 'the RA Act') came to be allowed awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 10.04.2014 till the date of award and thereafter, @ 9% per annum till realization.

¶43

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though the respondents have been served, they have chosen to remain absent.

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14220 MFA No. 9647 of 2017

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Brief facts :

¶47

The respondents being the legal representatives of the deceased - Smt. Shahazad Bi filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the RCT Act read with Section 124-A of the RA Act seeking compensation for her death in an untoward incident that occurred on 11.06.2012.

¶48

The claimants are the husband, daughter-in-law along with her two grand children of the deceased. The case of the claimants is that the deceased, along with her family members intended to travel from Yalavagi to Kundagola and purchased valid journey tickets. When the train No.56911 (Bangalore-Hubballi) arrived at about 10:30.a.m., while attempting to board the train, the deceased slipped due to loss of grip on the handle, fell between the platform and train, and was run over, resulting in instantaneous death.

¶49

The railways contested the claim denying the liability, contending that the deceased attempted to board

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14220 MFA No. 9647 of 2017

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

a moving train and the incident occurred due to her negligence. It was further contended that no ticket was recovered during inquest and the tickets were planted later.

¶53

The tribunal framed the following issues:

¶54

" 1. Whether there was any untoward accident as is defined under the provision of Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989?

¶55

2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger?

¶56

3. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased?

¶57

4. Whether the applicants are entitled any relief and interest as prayed for in the application? ".

¶58

In order to substantiate their claim, the first

¶59

applicant examined himself as AW.1 and got marked 14 documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A14. The DRM's investigation

¶60

report was marked as Ex.R1. The Union of India examined

¶61

6 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:14220 MFA No. 9647 of 2017

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

one Sri. Dhan Raj Meena, Station Master as RW.1 and

¶65

marked 2 documents as Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.

¶66

The tribunal, upon appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence, held hat:

¶67

i. the deceased was a bonafide passenger

¶68

ii. the incident constituted an untoward incident (accidental fall from the train)

¶69

iii. the applicants are the dependent of the deceased;

¶70

iv. negligence of the deceased is not a ground to deny compensation relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JAMEELA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA¹ (Jameela).

¶71

Accordingly, the Trial Court allowed the claim and

¶72

awarded statutory compensation.

¶73

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶74

submits that the deceased attempted to board a moving

¶75

1 2010 ACJ(SC) Civil Appeal No.1184/2003

¶76

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14220 MFA No. 9647 of 2017

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

train, which amounts to a negligence and falls within the exception under section 124-A, no journey ticket was recovered during inquest, the alleged tickets were subsequently produced from unknown source, raising serious doubt about bonafide passenger status. The evidence of the husband (AW.1) is unreliable, as he failed to produce the ticket at the relevant time and could not explain the material aspects. The tribunal failed to appreciate the contradictions and erroneously awarded compensation.

¶79

This Court has carefully considered the

¶80

contention and perused the materials placed on record.

¶81

It is not in dispute that the death occurred due to deceased falling while attempting to board the train. The evidence on record, including the inquest report, post mortem report and oral testimony clearly establishes that the death was caused due to accidental fall from the train, thereby attracting Section 123 (c) of the RA Act.

¶82

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14220 MFA No. 9647 of 2017

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

The contention of the railways that the deceased

¶85

was negligent in attempting to board a moving train, cannot be accepted to deny compensation. The law is well settled that mere negligence of a passenger does not fall within the exceptions under section 124-A. The Apex Court in the case of Jameela has held that the negligence is not a ground to deny the compensation.

¶86

With regard to the contention of non-recovery of the ticket at the time of inquest, the tribunal has appreciated the documentary evidence, including the journey tickets and corroborative materials. The railways own DRM report also does not conclusively disprove the status of the deceased as a bonafide passenger.

¶87

The finding of the tribunal that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the incident was an untoward incident is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from perversity or illegality. Further, the tribunal has rightly applied the principles of

¶88

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:14220 MFA No. 9647 of 2017

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

strict liability under Section 124-A, which mandates payment of compensation irrespective of fault, except in cases falling under specific statutory exceptions, which are not attracted in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merits and this Court pass the following:

¶91

ORDER

¶92

i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby

¶93

dismissed .

¶94

ii) The order dated 13.04.2017 in OA.II.U.171/2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, stands

¶95

confirmed .

¶96

Sd/-