Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38868

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

NC: 2025:KHC:40216

MFA No. 9036 of 2018

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9036 OF 2018 (RCT)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. PUNGADI

W/O LATE V SHANKAR,

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

OCC: HOMEMAKER,

2. MASTER PAVANKUMAR

S/O LATE V SHANKAR

AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,

STUDENT

3. MASTER TARUN KUMAR

S/O LATE V SHANKAR

AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS

STUDENT

4. BABY CHARMY

D/O LATE V SHANKAR

AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS

5. SRI VENKATESH

S/O LATE RAMASWAMY

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

6. SMT SARASAMMA

W/O VENKATESH

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

OCC: COOLIE

(SINCE APPLICANT NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, THERY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN)

SMT. PUNGADI,

I.E, APPLICANT NO.1

ALL ARE PERMANENT

RESIDENTS OF NO.73

INDIRANAGARA, KGF MAIN ROAD,

BENGALURU, DESHIHALLI, BANGARPET,

KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT – 563 114

…APPELLANTS

(BY SMT.BABY YADAV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY THE

GENERAL MANAGER,

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,

HUBLI – 580 020

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. PREETHA MAHADEVAN, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SMT.BABY YADAV, ADVOCATE
For the Respondents: SMT. PREETHA MAHADEVAN, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL

Compensation for railway accident claims is based on the principle of strict liability, ensuring entitlement despite negligence unless proven otherwise; judicial interpretation should favor claimants under beneficial legislation.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 124A - Claim for compensation dismissed by Tribunal on grounds of self-inflicted injury and criminal negligence - Court ruled that absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status - Primary burden on claimants, shifting to Railways upon proof - Beneficial legislation requires liberal interpretation. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

(B) Appeal allowed - Tribunal's dismissal of claim application set aside; claimants entitled to Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The claimants challenged tribunal's order dismissing compensation for the deceased, who fell from a train and was subsequently hit by a locomotive. Evidence indicated the deceased held a valid ticket at the time.

Findings of Court:
Tribunal's findings regarding the deceased's status as a passenger were erroneous; compensation awarded under the principle of strict liability for railway accidents.

Issues: Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the implications of the ticket's absence on the claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation is payable under the principle of strict liability unless proven otherwise; liberal interpretation is necessary in beneficial legislation like the Railways Act.

Result: Appeal allowed; compensation granted.

THIS MFA FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNALS ACT-1987, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.04.2017 PASSED IN OA NO.113/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION BARRED BY TIME.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in OA II U 113/2014, thereby, the claim petition was dismissed.

2. It is the case of claimants that on 04.04.2014 the deceased while travelling in the general compartment holding Second Class ticket bearing No.F-41711652 dated 04.04.2014 from Bangarpet Railway Station to K.R.Puram Railway Station, due to over crowd, jerk and jolt the deceased lost balance and fell down from the running train in between KJM Shed and SGWF Panel, sustained fatal injuries and was lying near the track in injured condition and again on the same place, he was also hit by Loco No.13347 at 09.00 a.m. and as such he died on the spot. Upon the information furnished by the Loco pilot the deceased was shifted to the NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru, where he died on the way to the hospital.

3. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the reason that upon the evidence of the Loco pilot there were two persons walking on the track on 04.04.2014 at morning 08.40 a.m. and even despite honking/horning both of them ignored the same and one of the person, who was walking ahead of the other person suddenly slipped hit by engine and fell outside the track in an injured condition. Therefore, the Tribunal has formed an opinion that the deceased was not a passenger, but was walking on the track hit by Loco Engine and thus died and as such, it is not a railway accident and it amounts to criminal negligence. Thus, dismissed the claim petition.

4. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased while travelling in the train fell down from the train and sustained severe injuries and at the same time he was hit by another train engine, thus died in the accident. A copy of the computerized journey ticket No.F-41711652 dated 04.04.2014 was discovered from the body of the deceased. Therefore, there is presumption of proof in favour of the claimants that the deceased had travelled in the train with valid journey ticket. The circumstances of occurrence of accident are not correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. When it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in the train with valid journey ticket and fell down from the train and after that he was hit by another loco engine, but these circumstances have not been correctly considered by the Tribunal.

5. The FIR, Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem Report, statement of police, have proved the fact that the deceased died in the railway accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record resulting into dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DOLI RANI SAHA VS. UNION OF INDIA¹(2024) 9 SCC 656 in paragraph No.13 has held as under:

"13. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Rina Deva (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38868

Compensation for railway accident claims is based on the principle of strict liability, ensuring entitlement despite negligence unless proven otherwise; judicial interpretation should favor claimants under beneficial legislation.

Cases Referred (2)