The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 ® BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2957 OF 2017(RCT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MADEVI W/O FAKKIRAPPA ADAKAVU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SRIDEVI W/O BASAVARAJ KOPPAD AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/O SULYA, HUBLI TLAUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 3. MANJUNATHA S/O FAKKIRAPPA ADAKAVU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 4. SHIVAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA ADAKAVU AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 5. BASAMMA W/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: NIL APPELLANT NO.1 AND 3 TO 5 ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF JADAGERI ONI, ANNIGERI TOWN, NAVALAGUNDA-TQ: DHARWAD DISTRICT. (BY SRI. M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 AND: UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI - 580020. …RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT,1987, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2016 PASSED IN OA NO. II U 162/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPANSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The claimants being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition vide judgment dated 14.12.2016 passed in OA II U 162/2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) have preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts leading to this case are that: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 On 28.07.2012, the deceased after completion of coolie work at Hubli Railway Station, procured journey ticket No. E-33057509 for Rs.6/- to proceed from Hubli to Annigeri along with a person by name Hanumanthappa, went near railway station to collect their bags and as the deceased and his said companion were proceeding to their train, the engine coming out of the workshop came outside and on hearing the sound of engine, deceased got scared and in a hurry, fell down on the workshop trackline and consequently, engine ran over the deceased and body got cut into two pieces. Thus, in this way, the deceased died on the spot. 3. The claimants being the wife and children of the deceased, have filed claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming compensation. However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the reasons that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he inspite of knowing the consequences of crossing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 the track, deliberately invited risk, committed criminal act and sustained self-inflicted injuries which come under Section 124-A(b) -self inflicted injuries and (c)- his own criminal act. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo has contended that Tribunal has given erroneous finding that the death of deceased cannot be construed as an untoward incident and the claimants are not entitled for compensation. But it has overlooked the circumstance wherein, the deceased has purchased the ticket No.E-33057509 dated 28.07.2012 for Rs.6/- from Hubli to Annigeri and while he was proceeding to platform, as there being no foot over bridge, the railway engine hit the deceased due to which, the deceased died on the spot and as such, it is evident from the said narrated facts that the death of deceased cannot be construed as an untoward incident. 5. Further, he submits that the deceased has purchased the ticket to travel from Hubli to Annigeri and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 thus, it is proved that he is a bonafide passenger and the death of deceased does not amount to any criminal act and injury sustained by him are not self-inflicted injury and the order passed by the Tribunal is not correct. 6. In support of his contention, he also placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Rajalakshmi & Others vs. The Union of India owning Southern Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Chennai1. On all these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and to grant compensation to the claimants. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submits that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he know very well about risk of crossing a track and the injuries sustained by him are self-inflicted injuries. As such, he justified the order passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal. 1 reported in 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 712 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 8. In the present case, the deceased has purchased ticket No. E-33057509 for Rs.6/- to travel from Hubli to Annigeri and as the deceased and his said companion were proceeding to their train, the engine coming out of the workshop came outside and on hearing the sound of engine, deceased got scared and in a hurry, fell down on the workshop trackline and consequently, engine ran over the deceased and body got cut into two pieces and died on the spot. 9. On perusal of Ex.A5 i.e., inquest report, the panchas have opined that it appears that the deceased has run over by railway engine and died accidentally. 10. Aw.1 during her cross-examination has admitted that her husband, while crossing the track, was hit and run over by engine. Further, AW.2 who was with the deceased at the time of incident, has also stated that in his cross-examination that after purchasing the ticket, to take back their tiffin box and luggage, they have - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 crossed the railway track and deceased was hit by the engine. 11. In the judgment cited supra, it is categorically mentioned the provisions of Section 147 of the Railways Act,1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) which reads as under: "147. Trespass and refusal to desist from trespass.—(1) If any person enters upon or into any part of a railway without lawful authority, or having lawfully entered upon or into such part misuses such property or refuses to leave, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such punishment shall not be less than a fine of five hundred rupees. (2) Any person referred to in sub-section (1) may be removed from the railway by any railway servant or by any other person whom such railway servant may call to his aid." - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 12. As per the provisions of said Section, it is very clear that if any person enters upon or into any part of the Railway without lawful authority, then only it amount to trespass. If a person is having a valid ticket or authorization from the Railway and he enters the track or crossing the track, then, it does not amount to trespass. In the said Section, it is very clear that 'if any person crossing the track without any lawful authority, that means without ticket or without permission and if any untoward incident happens, then it is not an untoward incident and his family is not entitled for compensation as per Section 124-A of the Act. But in the instant case, the deceased having purchased the ticket, while in process of boarding the train and while he was crossing the railway track, this untoward event happened which does not amount to 'trespass'. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the deceased was working as a coolie. After completion of his work as entrusted by the railway authorities, the deceased has purchased the ticket to visit his native place and he was in the process of boarding the train. But, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 while he was crossing the track, this untoward incident happened. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased has trespassed and he is not a bonafide passenger. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above, it is proved that the injuries sustained and death of the deceased is not due to self inflicted injury. As a result, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires interference by this Court and the same is liable to be set aside. REGARDING COMPENSATION: 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others2, wherein at paragraph No.23 it is held as under: “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 claim 29.06.2017. Consequently, 2 (2023) 6 SCR 329 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017
Decision
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.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in case the accident was occurred in the year 2003 the compensation to be awarded is Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest from the date of petition till the date of realization. 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 claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. 16. In the case on hand, the accident was occurred on 28.07.2012. It is proved that the deceased is a bonafide passenger, while crossing the track, this - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 untoward incident has occurred and the claimants are entitled to compensation. Further, as per the schedule for awarding statutory compensation for the death occurred in these types of accidents, the maximum compensation ought to be awarded is Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., maximum of Rs.8,00,000/- in lumpsum. The schedule compensation is amended with effect from 01.01.2017. The accident is occurred before the amendment. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a statutory compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 17. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Miscellaneous First appeal allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 14.12.2016 passed in OA II U 162/2012 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is set aside. iii. The claimants being the wife and children of deceased are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization-maximum to 8,00,000/-. 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 claimant is entitled to a compensation of 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. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11707 MFA No. 2957 of 2017 vii. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the Railway Claims Tribunal forthwith. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50