The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2801 OF 2014 (RCT) R BETWEEN: CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDRU, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT H.No.12-6-284, LBS NAGAR, RAICHUR – 584 102. (BY SRI S.J.SANGHVI, ADVOCATE) AND: UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, RAILWAY NILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD – 500 371. ...APPELLANT Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN.H., DSGI) …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2013 PASSED IN OA II U 138/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT,1987, R/W SECTION 124-A OF RAILWAYS ACT, 1989. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the applicant challenging the judgment dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in OA II U 138/2011, thereby, application filed by the applicant seeking compensation is dismissed. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. It is the case of applicant that on 25.08.2009 the applicant went to the Railway Station, Raichur to go to Gulbarga by Chennai-Mumbai Mail Train after purchasing the general ticket to travel in the said train. While he was waiting on the platform and after arrival of the train, he boarded the same in general coach which was crowded and during the course of journey, the applicant accidentally fell down from the said train and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to the Government Hospital, Raichur, for treatment by Railway Police, Raichur. He was inpatient from 25.08.2009 to 27.10.2009 and due to said untoward incident he has become a paraplegia - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 patient for having sustained injuries in the untoward incident. By claiming that injuries sustained is not self inflicted injuries and therefore, being a bonafide passenger, he had sustained injuries in a railway accident, applicant filed an application seeking compensation. But the Tribunal has dismissed the application on the reason that injuries sustained by the claimant is self inflicted injuries and not a bonafide passenger. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that the applicant was a bonafide passenger since he has travelled after purchasing the ticket and boarded in the general coach, which was heavily crowded constraining the applicant to travel in such crowded coach and as a result, he fell from the coach and sustained injuries. Therefore, submitted that since the applicant has purchased ticket he is a bonafide passenger and he has sustained injuries in an untoward incident. The injuries sustained by the applicant are not self inflicted injuries, but in this regard, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 evidence on record correctly resulting into erroneous judgment of dismissal being passed. Further submitted that due to the accident, the applicant is suffering from paraplegia. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and grant compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India appearing on behalf of Railway Department submitted that applicant was not a bonafide passenger as he had not purchased the ticket. Further submitted that applicant was travelling on the footboard of the door and as such, the injuries sustained by the applicant are self inflicted injuries. Therefore, justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Upon hearing the submissions made by both the counsel, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 (i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellant/applicant proves that he was a bonafide passenger? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellant/applicant proves that he has sustained injuries due to an untoward incident? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the respondent proves that injuries sustained are self inflicted injuries and applicant was not a bonafide passenger? (iv) Under the facts and circumstances, if the application is allowed what compensation amount is entitled by the claimant? (v) What order? 6. All the above points are taken up together for common consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts and law as they are interlinked to each other. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 7. It is the case made out by the claimant that on 25.08.2009 he was travelling in Chennai-Mumbai Mail Train from Raichur to Gulbarga after purchasing ticket and the said train was over crowded. Therefore, during the course of journey, the claimant accidentally fell down from the train and sustained grievous injuries and thus, filed the claim petition for claiming compensation. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application. The Tribunal has assigned the reason that the claimant has not produced the journey ticket, therefore, arrived at a conclusion that the claimant was not a bonafide passenger. Further in DRM report, there is no signature of the Manager and the date of message given by Station Master/Raichur to SI/GRP/Raichur and SI/RPF/Raichur the date of accident is mentioned as 20.08.2009, whereas the incident had occurred on 25.08.2009. Therefore, as there is discrepancy in mentioning the date, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Further assigned the reason that there is no eye witness to the incident. The claimant has not examined any eye witness and also not examined - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 anybody who had accompanied the injured to the railway station and have not seen purchasing of journey ticket. 8. Further assigned the reason that Form No.1 and 2 enclosed with DRM’s report do not contain signature of the concerned authority or any date and place of untoward incident. Further assigned the reason that the Station Master at Raichur has stated that the claimant was lying at KM.No.565/7-8 between Raichur and Yermarus and near over bridge No.1071. But in para 6-b of the petition, the claimant has not mentioned the location where he fell and sustained injuries and also the Inspector/RPF/Raichur’s report referred in DRM’s report is unsigned. Therefore, on all these reasons, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal on trivial reasons has dismissed the claim petition, which is not in accordance with law. The Tribunal without considering the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 scope and ambit of the statutes in this regard and dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions has erroneously dismissed the claim petition. He argued with reference to various provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 along with the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (for short “Rules, 2003”). Therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India justified the dismissal of the claim petition. 11. Section 124A of Railways Act stipulates regarding compensation on account of untoward incident, which reads as under: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 “124A. account of untoward incident- Compensation on When in the course of working incident a railway an untoward occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an in action and recover damages railway respect administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only of loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: thereof, the that Provided no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to— (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “passenger” includes— (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.]” 12. Section 124A is formulated on “No Fault Liability”. It provides that when in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed is entitled for
Legal Reasoning
compensation. This Court in the case of Sri Mahaboob Sab and Smt. Mahaboob Jaan Vs. Union of India - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 (UOI) South Western Railways1, wherein at paragraph No.17 it is held as under: “17. The fact that Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation cannot be lost sight of by this Court and it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and purposeful construction of an enactment is one which gives effect intent. Particularly when such beneficial legislation is called in question, it should liberal interpretation and applying a interpretation would strained defeat the legislative purpose for which enactment is brought about.” legislative receive of a 13. During the course of cross-examination, the claimant has admitted that he has not produced the journey ticket to the Tribunal. For this, it is the explanation offered by the claimant that he lost ticket in the said accident and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the hospital, in that process, he lost ticket. Therefore, in this regard, upon considering the evidence of 1 (2010) 4 KCCR 2536 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 the claimant and respondent, just because, the claimant has not produced the journey ticket, it cannot be said that he is not the bonafide passenger. When the accident occurs, the most important step to be taken immediately is to take medical treatment rushing to the hospital rather than giving attention to preserve tickets. Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be expected from the claimant to prompt preservation of the journey ticket after accident occurs. It is the responsibility of the railways to produce the Daily Ticket Collection Register to prove that as to how many passengers have purchased the ticket and how many passengers actually travelled in the train. The railways are maintaining Daily Ticket Collection Register. 14. It is the case of the claimant that the train was over crowded. Though, the railway has issued ticket, therefore, under these circumstances, when an untoward incident occurs and found that the claimant has sustained injuries on the track, it is an accident towards occurring of untoward incident. It is worthwhile to refer paragraph - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 No.18 in the case of Sri Mahaboob Sab (stated supra), which reads as under: for that he would “18. Mr. Raghupathy learned Counsel respondents would appearing initial burden by contend claimants have not been discharged to demonstrate that deceased was travelling as a valid passenger by holding a valid ticket. Though this argument looks attractive, it cannot be accepted for simple and obvious reason that in a situation where a person who falls from train and suffers multiple injuries and is shifted to an hospital on an emergent basis cannot be expected to retain the ticket, which have purchased and to further expect the claimants who are none other than parents of deceased to establish this fact deceased had fact purchased the ticket. On the other hand it is necessary to observe at this is juncture travelling in a train is deemed to have been purchased the ticket and is travelling as a valid passenger until and unless rebutted by respondent to show otherwise. In the absence of this fact, this Court cannot learned accept the arguments of counsel appearing for respondent. In view of the above finding, order of Tribunal on issue Nos.1 and 2 is liable that a person who that in is it - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. Rules 6 to 13 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, stipulates as follows: of Duties Station ”6. Station Superintendent-The Superintendent, on receipt of an information about the occurrence of an untoward incident under rule 3, shall,- (i) (ii) make necessary entries to this effect in the station diary; arrange medical for assistance to the injured passengers; incident (iii) make out a brief report in the respect of spot of untoward and forward copies thereof to the Divisional Office, Zonal Railways, and Security [Divisional Commissioner] the of Force. police 2[***] - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 7. Conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Force- (1) On receipt of information under Rule 6, an officer of the Force, [***] shall carry out the investigation and shall,- (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) obtain copies of the inquest report, post mortem report and Jama Talashi report from police the investigating the incident obtain a copy of the report specified under clause information about obtain the untoward incident in Form-2; statement record of additional witnesses, if so required collect any other evidence required the circumstances of the case. by (2) The officer of the Force, [shall complete the investigation within sixty days and] submit a report to the [authority] specified under sub-rule (2) of rule 10. of 8. Conducting investigation and submission of report by the Police- - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 immediately (1) The police on receipt of the report under clause (iii) of rule 6, shall initiate investigation and prepare inquest report in injury accordance with the procedure laid down in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. report or (2) After preparation of report, as mentioned in sub-rule (1), the immediately give police shall clearance for certificate movement of trains from the site of incident so that minimum delay is caused in restoration of train movement. The injured and the next 9. the deceased of kin of submit may passenger evidence and assist police and Force- The injured and the next of kin of the deceased passengers relevant may submit all evidence before the Police and assist the Police and the Force to complete the investigation. the 10. Forwarding of investigation report by the Police and the Force- (1) The police on completion of the investigation, shall forward the the Magistrate, as required under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. thereof report to - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 the (2) The officer of the Force shall forward report prepared under sub-rule (2) of rule 7 to the Security [***] Commissioner of the Force. Divisional (3) The Security Divisional Commissioner shall submit the report to Divisional Railway Manager within fifteen days of the receipt of report of investigation from officer of the force. 11. Action on the report by Railway the Manager- Divisional Railway Divisional (1) The Manager, on receipt of the report, [mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 10 shall examine the same within fifteen days. (2) When, on examination, Divisional Railway Manager is the investigation is complete, he shall pass an order accepting the said report. satisfied that If inquiry some more (3) the Divisional Railway Manager has reason to believe that is required in the matter, it shall refer for same investigation to the officer of the Force along with his observations for further investigation. back the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 (4) On receipt of a reference under sub-rule (3), the officer of the Force shall investigate the matter further and submit the report the to Divisional Railway Manager. immediately 12. Communication of order - Final orders passed on the report by the Divisional Railway Manager shall be communicated to the Station Superintendent who shall maintain the records and make necessary entries in the Station Diary to this effect. 13. Sending report to Claim Office- acceptance investigation report (1) The of along with Divisional Manager Railway thereon shall be sent within fifteen days to the administrative in-charge of the claim office of the Zonal Railway where the incident has occurred. (2) The administrative in-charge of claim office of the Zonal Railway who has received the notice of claim for that particular incident shall arrange to collect the report from the claim office of Railway where the incident has occurred and submit the same to the the concerned bench of - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 Railway Claims Tribunal along with the Written Statement.]” 16. Clause (c) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 defines “untoward incident” as under: “Clause (c) of Section 123 - “untoward incident” means— (1) (i)the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 and of the Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or Terrorist (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any the other precincts of a railway station; or” place within - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 17. Sub-Section (2) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 reads as under: “Sub-section (2) of Section 123 - the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 18. Clause (a) of Section 123 of Railways Act, 1989 defines “accident” as, an accident of the nature described in Section 124. 19. Section 124 of Railways Act, 1989 defines “Extent of liability”, which reads as under: “124. Extent of liability- When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the shall, administration railway part the of - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal loss, or destruction, deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. and damage injury Explanation.—For the purposes of this section “passenger” includes a railway servant on duty.” 20. Therefore, upon reading of Sections 123, 124 and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, it is based on “No Fault Liability” on the part of the passenger. Whether or not there is any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or suffered loss or killed in the accident, then the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to the passengers who suffered injuries or death occurred in such an untoward incident. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 21. It is not possible for the claimant to examine a person as he has witnessed that the claimant has purchased tickets and also it is not possible for the claimant to examine a person as eye witness to the incident. If any passenger accompanied his friend or relative, then it may be possible to examine that person as eye witness. But whereas a passenger travels alone along with other stranger passenger, then after the incident and when the claim petition is filed before the Tribunal, it is not possible for the claimant to examine other passenger as witness to the incident. It is not expected in this regard that the claimant to examine any person as eye witness. Expectation by the railway administration that the claimant should examine eye witness is ridicule on the part of the railway administration and it is wholly unwarranted. What the Railway Department prepares report by the Divisional Railway Manager as stated above certain duties are prescribed on the railway authorities as per Rules 6 to 13 of Rules, 2003 (stated supra) to follow the same as - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 they are mandatory duties on part of railway authorities at various levels. 22. Rules 6 to 13 as above stated impose bounden duty on the officials of railway authorities to perform their duties and discharge their functions when an untoward incident occurs. Therefore, what the railway authorities could do and ought to perform their functions, it cannot be expected from the claimant’s side. The claimant has already suffered injuries. Therefore, it is not a rivers burden on the claimant to prove each and every minute aspect of the accident. But the Tribunal has committed error by expecting evidence of eye witness from the claimant, which the railway authorities ought to do. Therefore, the observations of the Tribunal that, just because, the signature is not found in the report, hence, suspecting the claim petition wholly is not correct. 23. When the respondent-Railway has taken the contention that the claimant has not produced the railway - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 ticket, but certain duties are cast on the Railway as per Rule 4 of Rules, 2003 (stated supra). 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others2, wherein at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 held as under: due passengers “9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of provisions of the Railways Act, in particular Chapter XIII which deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to to accidents. Section 123 (c) defines “untoward incident”. As per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers would be an untoward incident. As per Section 124A, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of untoward incident. When in the course of working of railway, an incident occurs then untoward whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the Railway Administration as such, would entitle a passenger who has been injured or died. The claim can be maintained to and recover notwithstanding anything contained in any other law the Railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed damages, part the the of 2 (2023) 6 SCR 329 - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 for such untoward incident. By the explanation of the said Section clarifying about ‘passenger’, it would include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. is found on 10. This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger railway premises. While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 and the judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India,2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828 and also considered the this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India,(2019)12 SCC 391 and in para 29 concluded as thus- judgement of for which claim “We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts attending shown circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” found. The facts the or 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani Devi Vs. Union of India3 at paragraph No.13 held as under: for counsel the “13. Learned appellants, support of his in contentions, placed reliance on a judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Rani Devi v. Union of India reported in 2018 ACJ 2681 wherein it is held that: Railways Act, 1989, Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A-Untoward incident — Negligence of victim — Passenger fell down while boarding train at platform and sustained fatal injuries — Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the grounds that deceased was not a bona fide passenger as ticket was not recovered from him but was later produced by claimant and the 3 2017 SCC Online Del 10274 - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 train in question departed before the occurrence of the incident Section 124-A is based on the principle of no fault liability and compensation cannot be denied on the ground that deceased was negligent and it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault — Body of the deceased was found on the tracks near platform which proves the accident resulting in the death of deceased — Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident and Railways is liable” 26. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi4 it is held that mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative to claim that he was a bonafide passenger. At paragraph No.17.4 in the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the above legal position in this regard, which is extracted at paragraph No.17.4 as follows: ”17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim 4 (2019) 3 SCC 572 - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 could compensation ticket with such be for maintained. However, mere absence of injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” then shift on 27. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that liability of the Railway is a strict liability as per the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 123 and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, it is specifically provided that compensation has to be granted on account of an untoward incident, even if there is negligence on the part of bonafide passenger. In this regard, I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 and Others5 and Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI)6. It is held that even if the bonafide passenger is guilty of negligence, compensation has to be granted in this regard. The only way the railway can avoid the liability is to prove that the negligence is not an ordinary negligence, but it is a case of criminal negligence or a case of suicide or self inflicted injury. 28. It is the duty cast on the railway authorities as per the Rules, 2003, mandating the railway authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident. Therefore, it is the duty cast on the railway authorities to produce the result of investigation as provided under the Rules, 2003 to produce before the Tribunal, and it could not be expected from the claimants to produce the details of accident. The Rules, 2003, imposes various mandatory duties on the railway authorities which the Station Superintendent, Guard, Conductor and Train Ticket Examiner in-charge of the train and forward report to the
Decision
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order dated 29.11.2013 passed in O.A.II U 138/2011 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is set aside. - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC:16277 MFA No. 2801 of 2014 (iii) The claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till (iv) (v) (vi) the date of realization. No order as to costs. Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records along with copy of this order to the Railway Claims Tribunal forthwith. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74