The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9846 MFA No. 6675 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6675 OF 2017 (RCT) BETWEEN: THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI – 560 020 (BY SRI.B.M. KUSHALAPPA, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: 1. LAKSHMI W/O LATE VENKATESH, AGE 43 YEARS OCC: COOLIE, 2. ANITHA D/O LATE VENKATESH AGE 20 YEARS 3. SUMA D/O LATE VENKATESH AGE 16 YEARS 4. SWETHA Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA D/O LATE VENKATESH, AGE 14 YEARS (RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 WHO IN NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER ) 5. SUBRAMANI S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGE 72 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9846 MFA No. 6675 of 2017 6. MUGILAMMA W/O SUBRAMANI AGE 68 YEARS RESPONDENT 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.100/1, RANGAPPA LAYOUT, T.C.PALYA, NEAR STF CHURCH, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU – 560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY KUM. SIMREN AMICUS CURAIE FOR R1 TO R6; R3 AND R6 MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT 1987, (CENTRAL ACT NO. 54 OF 1987), AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.02.2017 PASSED IN O.A.II U 70/2014 ON FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,00,000/- WITH INTEREST THEREON AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF CLAIM APPLICATION TILL THE DATE OF AWARD AND THEREAFTER AT 9% PA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9846 MFA No. 6675 of 2017 2. The appeal is filed by the appellant/Union of India challenging the judgment and award dated 08.02.2017 passed in O.A.No.II U 70/2014 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) seeking to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The claimants are stated to be legal representatives of the deceased Venkatesha that on 06.09.2013, the deceased along with his friend one Babu holding journey ticket Nos.793513236 and 793513234, waas travelling from Chilakudi to Bangalore in a train and during his journey, he went to answer nature call in dozy mood but accidently he lost his balance and fell from the open door of the fast moving train between Bisanatham and Kamasamudram Railway Stations near K.M.No.268/400-500. Therefore, upon the claim made by the claimants being legal heirs of the deceased, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim application till the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9846 MFA No. 6675 of 2017 date of award and thereafter at the rate of 9% p.a. till the date of actual payment of the same. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Union of India submitted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and also there is no proof by the respondents/claimants that the deceased has purchased the ticket and has travelled in the train. Further submitted that the accident occurred on 06.09.2013 and as per prevailing law regarding want of statutory compensation, the compensation has to be awarded is Rs.4,00,000/-, but the Tribunal has granted excess amount of compensation. Hence, on these two grounds prays to allow the appeal. 5. Though the respondents are served notice, but remained absent. Since the respondents are women and minor children therefore, they are entitled free legal aid as per Section 13 of the Legal Services Authority Act. Accordingly, Kumari. Simren, learned Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and also to represent on behalf of respondents. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9846 MFA No. 6675 of 2017 6. Learned Amicus Curiae, Kumari. Simren, submitted that the deceased was bonafide passenger holding valid ticket in the counter and during night journey when he was travelling and in the process of attending natures call in dozy mood but accidently lost balance and fell down from the open door and succumbed to the injures. Therefore, the deceased died in the Railway accident and justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 7. Upon considering the rival submissions and
Legal Reasoning
perusal of the documentary evidence on record, Ex.A-1-FIR; Ex.A-2-SM/BWT’s message to SI/GRP/BWT dated 07.09.2013; Ex.A-3-inquest report; Exs.A-4 to A-7– statements given to Police by Babu Co-passenger, Gangadhar–Brother-in-law, Shivaiah–Brother of the deceased and AW-1 on 11.09.2013 and Ex.A-10–post mortem report. All these documentary evidence proved the fact that the deceased while traveling in the Railway fell from the moving train and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9846 MFA No. 6675 of 2017 8. When this being the fact, as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. RINA DEVA1 held that the deceased is a bonafide passenger deemed to have purchased the ticket for traveling in the train. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct holding that the deceased was travelled as bonafide passenger and died in the Railway accident as stated above and in this regard the appreciation of evidence made by the Tribunal is justified, correct and legal. 9. So far as quantum of compensation award is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest as above stated. The accident is caused on 06.01.2013, therefore, as per the schedule for awarding statutory compensation for the death occurred in these types of accident, the maximum compensation ought to have been awarded is Rs.4,00,000/- with interest maximum of Rs.8,00,000/-, but the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The schedule to the statutory 1 AIR 2018 SC 2362 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9846 MFA No. 6675 of 2017 compensation is amended with effect from on 01.01.2017, therefore, the accident is occurred before the amendment hence, the claimants are entitled statutory compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest maximum of total Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/Union of India is liable to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 08.02.2017 passed in O.A.II U 60/2014 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, stands modified to the extent that the claimants/respondents are entitled statutory compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest thereon as prescribed by the Tribunal maximum of Rs.8,00,000/-. iii. The High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay professional fees to the learned Amicus Curiae, as per rules. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9846 MFA No. 6675 of 2017 iv. The excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant. v. The apportionment of compensation is in terms of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal with proportionate reduction. vi. No order as to costs. vii. Draw award accordingly. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31