Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 1367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT GULBARGA
G. Narendra, J.
Mallappa & Others - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India - Respondent
M.F.A. No. 30503 of 2008 [RCT]
Decided On : 11-12-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Manjunath Mallayya Shetty, Chaitanyakumar C.M.
For the Respondent: Manvendra Reddy
Headnote:
Railways Act, 1988 – Sections 23, 2, 124 – Accident – Claim – Accident pertains to year 2004 – Appellants are the original claimants 2 and 3 and the 1st claimant was one Kalamma, wife of deceased – Said Kalamma is stated to have died during the proceedings and that the appellants are the only surviving heirs of the said Basappa – Above appeal is preferred under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Railways Act, 1988. – Appellants before this Court are the children of late Basappa, who is alleged to have been involved in an untoward incident and their claim has been rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench by its Judgment rendered in O.A. – Held, Claims Tribunal, instead of giving a liberal interpretation moreso in the light of the definition of "passenger" as contained in Section 2 (29) and Section 124-A as well as explanation to the said section narrowed down the interpretation of "passenger" and thereby the applicants were deprived of being entitled to compensation. – Finding of the Claims Tribunal that for being a passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act, he must be a person a travelling with a ticket relating to the concerned train cannot be sustained in law not only in view of the definition of "passenger" referred to by me above but also in view of the interpretation to be given to the words in respect of a beneficial or welfare statute is concerned. – Consequently, the order of the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside." – A reading of the above paragraphs would clearly demonstrate that the impugned Order of the Tribunal is wholly illegal and unsustainable and is liable to be set aside – Expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers includes accidents when a bona fide passenger, i.e., a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. – Purposive and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. – Claim Application Allowed
G. Narendra, J.
The appellants before this Court are the children of late Basappa, who is alleged to have been involved in an untoward incident and their claim has been rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench by its Judgment dated 14.08.2008, rendered in O.A. No. 5/2005.
2. The accident pertains to the year 2004. The appellants are the original claimants 2 and 3 and the 1st claimant was one Kalamma, wife of deceased Basappa. The said Kalamma is stated to have died during the proceedings and that the appellants are the only surviving heirs of the said Basappa. The above appeal is preferred under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Railways Act, 1988.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The facts according to the appellants are;
"It is contended that the father of the appellants had fallen to the death at KM No. 627/8-9 on upline between Yadgir and Lingeri Stations while he was travelling by Nagrkoil Express (down) on 07.05.2004. It has been stated in the claim petition that due to a jerk, the deceased lost his balance and accidentally fell down from the compartment on the track and thereafter the said train ran over him, resulting in fatal injuries to him and subsequent death. It is further stated that the deceased was in possession of Ticket No. 13012, issued to travel from Krishnarajapuram to Yadgir.
The said claim was contested by the respondent/Railway Authority on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the recovered ticket was not issued for the train mentioned therein.
On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal also recorded the following facts, which are weaned from the Police records viz., FIR. That one unknown dead body was lying on KM No. 627/9-8 on upline between Yadgir and Lingeri and the age of the dead person and by whom it was noticed. That the FIR was received with the Police Station between 10.15 hours. The Tribunal has also noticed that the application is silent about when the deceased started his journey and how the accident occurred in the mid-section. The Tribunal has also recorded that in the inquest report it is stated that the deceased has come across a moving train. The Tribunal has also examined contents of the post-mortem report. According to it, the cause of death was due to injuries to vital organs and the time of death probably about 24-36 hours prior to examination. It is also refers to a detailed report of the Railway Police Force [for short "RPF"] and the report is said to have been approved by DRM/GTL stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death was not due to fall from the train as there was no train viz., Train No. 6340, Nagarkoil Express on that day and the death was due to other reasons. The copy of the report has also been placed before the Tribunal as Annexure-R1 and the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the application."
5. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal formulated the following 4 issues:
"1. Whether the applicants prove that the deceased Bassappa while travelling by Nagerkoil Express on 07.05.04 fell down between Yadgiri and Lingeri Stations and died in an untoward incident in terms of Section 123(c)(2) or 124-A of Railways Act, 1989?
2. Whether the respondent railways prove that the deceased Bassappa was not a bona fide passenger by Nagerkoil Express on 07.05.04 in terms of Section 123(c) (2) or 124-A of Railways Act, 1989?
3. Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased Bassappa?
4. What relief? What costs?"
6. A reading of issue No. 1 would show that the Tribunal has wrongly cast the burden on the applicants. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are rightly cast.
7. With regard to issue No. 1, it is necessary to find out as to whether the findings are in consonance with the law or otherwise. With regard to issue No. 1, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants have failed to prove the same because the said Nagarkoil Express Train departs from K.R. Puram on 05.05.2004 and w
