The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14245 MFA No. 4007 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4007 OF 2019 (RCT) BETWEEN: 1. THIPPAVVA @ THIPPAMMA, W/O LATE MONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE 2. DASHARATHA, D/O LATE MONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 3. BHEEMAPPA S/O LATE MONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 4. MAREMMA S/O LATE MONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.4 REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE RESIDING AT RESIDENT OF NO.82/4, SHETTIKERA, ZINKERE LPOST, YADAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. (BY SRI. A. MANJULA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. D. KUMAR RAJU, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14245 MFA No. 4007 of 2019 AND: THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDRABAD …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2018 PASSED IN OA II U 158/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION WITH NO COSTS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment .dated 09.10.2018 passed in OA II U 158/2014 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, (for short 'the Tribunal') wherein the claim petition is dismissed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14245 MFA No. 4007 of 2019 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the records. 3. The claimants being the wife and children of the deceased Monappa, who died in the Railway accident, filed claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, therefore, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 4. The case of the claimants is that the deceased went to Raichur Railway Station for purchasing ticket to travel from Raichur to Yadgiri. The deceased is a resident of Shettikera of Yadgiri Taluk. On 25.06.2014 while traveling in the train the said Monappa, accidentally fell down from the moving train in between Lingeri and Yadgiri Railway Station, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. But the claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed on the ground that time of purchasing the ticket is mentioned as 11.57 p.m. (night) but the dead body was noticed on 25.06.2014 at 11.20 p.m (night), i.e., the dead - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14245 MFA No. 4007 of 2019 body is found before time of purchasing the ticket, therefore, found suspiciousness in this regard and accordingly dismissed the petition. 5. Upon considering the submission made by both learned counsel for the appellants, it is evident that the deceased had purchased the ticket on 25.06.2014 at 11.57 p.m. (night) intending to travel from Raichur to Yadgiri. But in fact the key man has intimated the Station Manager upon finding the dead body at 12.30 a.m. (night) on next day i.e., 26.06.2014. In DRM report also it is mentioned that the key man has given intimation to Station Manager about the dead body found at 12.30 a.m. night. Therefore, when discrepancy is found in this regard, the Tribunal having raised suspiciousness regarding the accident, is not correct. It is not disputed from DRM report that a dead body of the deceased was
Legal Reasoning
found on the Railway Track and it is first noticed by the key man on 26.06.2014 at 12.30 a.m. (night). Therefore, the Tribunal is not correct in raising such suspiciousness - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14245 MFA No. 4007 of 2019 when from the documents such as the FIR, complaint, inquest panchanama, journey ticket, post mortem report and DRM report, it is proved that one Monappa died after purchasing the ticket for travelling from the Raichur to Yadgiri. Hence it is proved that the deceased died in the railway accident. Thus the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. 6. The accident is caused on 25.06.2014, therefore as per Schedule II of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and if the said lumpsum amount is lesser than Rs.8,00,000/- then the claimants are entitled to a maximum of Rs.8,00,000/- in lumpsum. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14245 MFA No. 4007 of 2019 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others1, wherein at paragraph No.23 it is held as under: the impugned
Decision
“23. Accordingly and as per above discussion we allow this appeal and set aside 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 its the claim application 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.” filing till 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in cases wherein the accident occurred in the year 2003 and compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded 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 interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the claimant is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the 1 (2023) 6 SCR 329 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14245 MFA No. 4007 of 2019 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/-. 9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment dated 09.10.2018 passed in claim application No.OA II U 158/2014 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, is set aside. (iii) The claimants being wife and children 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. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14245 MFA No. 4007 of 2019 (iv) It is also made clear that 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/-. (v) No order as to costs. (vi) Draw decree accordingly. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT: BHK - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14245 MFA No. 4007 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [THIPPAVVA @ THIPPAMMA AND OTHERS VS. THE UNION OF INDIA] 17.06.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’ This Court on 03.04.2025 has disposed of the appeal. In the operative portion of the order at clause (iv) it is ordered as follows: then iv. “It is also made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than the claimants are Rs.8,00,000/-, entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the present 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/-.” compensation also, case 2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KAMUKAYI AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14245 MFA No. 4007 of 2019 OTHERS2 has observed at paragraph No.22, which reads as follows: “22. The said explained by this Court relevant para 11 is reproduced as thus: judgment was further in Radha Yadav3, is less than “11. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi4 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 amount so calculated 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 figure before amendment, 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, in by way of which was brought the basic 2 (2023) 19 SCC 116