Sri. Halesha R.G. learned counsel for appellants and

Sri. Satish Kumar N., learned counsel for respondent have

appeared in person.

For the sake of convenience, the ranking of the

parties is referred to as per their ranking before the

Railway Claims Tribunal Bangalore Bench at Bangalore.

The applicants filed application under Section 16 of

the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section

124-A of Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) with interest for

the death of deceased Ameer Khan who is said to have

died in untoward incident.

The first applicant is the wife and applicants 2 to 5, 7

to 9 are sons and applicants 6 and 8 are the daughters of

the deceased.

4

The applicants narrated the incident that deceased

Ameer Khan travelling from Chikkabanavar to Tumkur by

purchasing

railway

ticket

for

Rs.10/-

vide

ticket

No.11587381 dated 21.01.2012 due to heavy rush in the

train, he must have sat and stood near by the door of the

train and near Tumkur Railway Station he accidentally fell

down from the train and got grievous injuries to his legs

and other parts and immediately shifted by 108 ambulance

and on the way he died. The applicant attributing the

above incident as <untoward incident= filed a claim

application before the Tribunal seeking compensation from

the Railway Department.

The Railway Department filed their reply statement

and they denied all the averments made in the application

and they sought for the dismissal of the application. They

also contended that the application does not come under

the ambit of Section 123 (c) or Section 124-A of the

Railways Act 1989. They further contended that it is a

5

case of <Volenti non fit injuria= damage suffered by

consent not a cause of action and <Nullus Commodum

Capere Protest De Injuria Sun Propria= i.e., No man can

take advantage of his own wrong. The deceased was not a

bona fide passenger. It was specifically contended that the

details of the ticket particulars furnished in the application

at para seven are false.

On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues.

In support of their claim, the applicants got examined the

sixth applicant - Simran Banu as AW-1 and got marked 12

documents as A-1 to A-12. The respondents did not

adduce any oral evidence, but filed DRM9S report which is

marked as Ex R-1.

On summary of the action, the Tribunal rejected the

application. Hence this appeal is filed on several grounds

as set out in the Memorandum of Appeal.

Sri.Halesha.R.G.,

learned

counsel

for

appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting

the claim application.

6

Next, he submitted that the deceased Ameer Khan

had purchased the Train Ticket at the time of travelling, in

the train and Railway Police had collected, recovered the

ticket from the deceased and the same has been

mentioned in the investigation and inquest report prepared

by the railway department.

A further submission is made that the deceased was

a bona fide passenger. However, the Tribunal has failed to

appreciate the said facts.

Learned counsel vehemently contended that the

respondent did not lead any evidence and have also not

produced any documents to disbelieve the incident. Hence,

self-assumption of the Tribunal is not to be considered and

hence the rejection of the application is bad in law.

Lastly, he submitted that the incident is untoward

incident and hence this is a fit case to grant compensation

to the applicants. Among other grounds, he submitted that

7

the order passed by the Tribunal is un-sustainable in law.

hence, he sprayed that the appeal may be allowed.

Sri.Satish Kumar N., learned counsel for

respondents justified the order passed by the Railway

Claims Tribunal Bangalore.

Next, he submitted that the applicants have failed to

establish that the incident is untoward incident.

A further submission is made that the deceased was

not a bona fide passenger.

Learned counsel vehemently contended that the

details of the ticket parti