IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8024 OF 2009(RCT) BETWEEN Munibairappa, S/o. Late Munishamappa, Aged about 82 years, R/o. No.220, Huladenahalli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District.
(By Sri.M.A.Malvi, Advocate) AND Union of India, Represented by The General Manager, South Western Railway, Hubli.
(By Sri.N.S.Sanjay Gowda, Advocate) …Appellant …Respondent This MFA is filed under Section 23(1) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against the judgment dated 20.06.2008 passed in OA No.24/2005 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, dismissing the claim application filed under Section 16 of RCT Act for compensation.
This MFA coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT The appellant claimed compensation from the respondent in connection with death of his wife, Muniveeramma. He stated that his wife was traveling in a train from KGF to Bangarpet, and on the way, owing to sudden jerk, appellant’s wife fell down from the train, sustained injuries and died. This incident happened on 17.02.2005.
2. The respondent took a defence that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as she did not possess valid ticket, and that the deceased being a resident of Kuladevanahalli, had no occasion to travel from KGF to Bangarpet.
3. The Railway Claims Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short) has held that the evidence on record shows that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. There are no witnesses to the accident. Evidence of AW-I is of no use because he was not an eyewitness nor was he one who had seen the deceased lastly. Merely because in the inquest report at Ex.A2, it is written that the deceased might have fallen down from a moving train, it cannot be considered as a conclusive proof. The tribunal appears to have disbelieved this portion of inquest report because of tracing of certain other things or articles including currency notes belonging to deceased except the railway ticket. The tribunal is of the opinion that if the deceased had purchased a ticket, that would have been traced along with other articles and therefore the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The appellant/claimant is therefore not entitled to compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the judgment of the tribunal by arguing that the evidence is not properly assessed, that non tracing of a ticket itself is not a ground for denying compensation, that when it is clearly recorded in the inquest report that the deceased fell down from the train when it jerked, the inference would have been that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. It is also his argument that if the case of the respondent does not fall under Section 124A of the Railways Act, the liability fastens on the respondent. He seeks support for his argument from the decided cases viz., (1) Smt. Kamalawwa and others Vs Union of India (MFA 14014/2007, a decision of this Court) (2) Jayalakshmi Vs Union of India [2011(2)KLT 1001] and (3) Union of India Vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others [(2008)9 SCC 527].
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent seeks to sustain the judgment of the tribunal. His argument is that the deceased was not a bonafide purchaser, no ticket was traced near the dead body. The inquest report establishes this fact. If other articles could be traced, there was possibility of tracing the ticket also if she had purchased the ticket. He places reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamrunnissa Vs Union of India (AIR 2017 SC 1436).
6. On re-appreciation of evidence, it is possible to say that, as has been held by the tribunal, the evidence of AW1 is of no use as he is not an eye witness. The stand taken by the respondent that the deceased being a resident of Kuladevanahalli had no occasion to travel in a train, does not stand to reason in view of an answer given by AW-I in the cross examination. His answer is that his wife went to Tekal to board the train in order to go to a temple near KGF. This answer is probable to be accepted. But during inquest, ticket was not traced. AW-I in the cross examination has answered that his wife used to keep the ticket in a pouch. In the inquest report at para VII, it is clearly written that there was a red colour purse inside the jacket and some articles namely, a address slip, a pair of gold like ear studs, nose stud, a Rs.100/- and a Rs.20/- currency notes were found. Besides this purse, a small bag containing tobacco powder was also found. This inquest is not disputed. It is from this portion of the inquest report probability in the defence set up by the respondent can be seen. It is possible to say that if the deceased had purchased a ticket, that would have been found in the purse. Therefore the tribunal’s finding that the deceased was not bonafide passenger cannot be disturbed.
7. In the two decisions referred to by the appellants counsel, ie., in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Jayalakshmi (supra), the deceased had valid tickets. Claim petitions were dismissed for some other reasons and therefore while dealing with such a situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Kerala High Court had to explain the purport and intent of beneficial legislation providing for payment of compensation to victims of accidents or untoward incidents. In the decision of this Court in the case of Kamalawwa (supra), the facts showed probability of ticket being crushed or lost when a person falls from the train and gets caught under the wheels. This is not the circumstance in the present case.
8. In the case of Kamarunnisa (supra), a decision cited by the respondent’s counsel, a pocket diary of the deceased was traced, but no ticket was found. The other factual aspect accepted was that the deceased might have been run over by a train while he was crossing the track without noticing the oncoming train. Therefore it is clear that liability of the Railways arises under Section 124A of the Railways Act for the death of a bonafide passenger. It is trite to say that sometimes, it is not possible to produce or trace the ticket, but a decision in that regard has to be taken in the light of attending circumstances. With this discussion, I come to conclusion that the appeal deserves dismissal, accordingly it is dismissed without costs.
SD/- JUDGE sd