- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2540 MFA No. 200459 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200459 OF 2021 (RCT) BETWEEN: MRS. SHALAM BI @ SHALAM BEE W/O SHAIK SALEEM, AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O AT 12-11-19, SAAT KACHERI ROAD, NEAR WATER TANK, LALPAHADI, RAICHUR-584 101. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: UNION OF INDIA, GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD-500 003. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, DSGI) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2017 PASSED BY THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IN O.A. II U 197/2015 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2540 MFA No. 200459 of 2021 AWARDING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/- WITH 12% AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in O.A-II U 197/2015 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench dated 14.02.2017, the claimant is before this Court in appeal. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14.10.2014, one Jaleel @ alias Sheikh Jaleel, who was the son of the claimant, was found dead near Yaramaras railway yard. The claimant contended that on 14.10.2014 the deceased Jaleel had traveled to Gulbarga railway station from Raichur railway station as a passenger to attend Khaja Bandhe Nawaja Darga at Gulbarga to offer his prayers and while he was returning, he had boarded a train and he accidentally fell down from the moving train at railway KM - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2540 MFA No. 200459 of 2021 No.573/4-5 on up loop line at Yeramaras railway yard, Raichur, which is 10 kilometers on the Northern side of the railway station. His body was found with injuries. It was contended that he had purchased the railway ticket from Gulbarga to Raichur and it was lost in the incident. The petitioner contended that the deceased was aged 22 years, and was working coolie and mechanic and therefore, she is entitled for the compensation. 3. The claim was opposed by the respondent-Union of India represented by General Manager, South Central Railway, contending that in the detailed inquiry and investigation conducted, it was found that there was no eyewitness to say that the deceased had traveled in any train and due to an untoward incident he had fallen down and died. The records also revealed that the body of the deceased was not found to have any railway ticket and therefore, in the absence of any eyewitness account or a railway ticket, the investigation concluded that he was not a passenger. Therefore, the respondent-Union of India denied any liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2540 MFA No. 200459 of 2021 4. The Railway Claims Tribunal held the inquiry and the petitioner was examined as PW1. Ex.A1 to 10 were marked. However, no evidence was laid on behalf of the respondent- Union of India. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, it raised two issues which read as below. i) Whether the deceased was a passenger as defined under Railway Act? And ii) Whether the claim arises out of an “untoward incident” as Averred in the application? 5. Answering that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was a passenger, as defined under the Railways Act, it held that the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. Being aggravated by the same, the claimant is before this court in appeal. 6. The submissions by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the DSGI appearing for the respondent were heard. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the testimony of the PW1 who deposed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2540 MFA No. 200459 of 2021 before the Railway Claims Tribunal has not been rebutted by any evidence. In her testimony, she has categorically stated that the deceased had gone to Gulbarga to offer his prayers at the Darga. Thereafter, while he was returning, he had purchased the ticket and he traveled in the train, but due to some untoward incident, he had fallen down near Yaramaras railway station. It is submitted that the testimony of the PW1 should have been rebutted by some evidence to show that he traveled without a railway ticket. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha V/s Union of India,1 wherein the Apex Court in para 13 and 14 holds as below: “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 Devi (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 1 2024 INSC 603 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2540 MFA No. 200459 of 2021 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 is reproduced below: “29. 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 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 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 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.” 14. In the present case, the appellant had duly filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which showed that the deceased was travelling on the train and that his death was caused by a fall during the course of his travel. The burden of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2540 MFA No. 200459 of 2021 proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in question was not rebutted.” She also relies on the judgment in the case of Smt. Leelavathamma V/s Union of India.2 8. Per contra, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent-Union of India submit that the inquiry and the investigation conducted by the railway police revealed that there was no ticket on the body of the deceased when it was found by a railway employee. The body had fallen near the railway track. Therefore, in the absence of any railway ticket found on the body of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that it was not proved that he was a passenger. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal holds good and no interference is required. 9. It is pertinent to note that the investigation conducted by the railway police show that when the inquest 2 2004(2) Kar. L.J. 545 (DB) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2540 MFA No. 200459 of 2021 was conducted on the body of the deceased, it did not possess any valid railway ticket. On that ground, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the deceased was not a passenger defined under the Railways Act. The Tribunal holds as below: “In this case, the police was able to recover the purse and the driving license and if there was a ticket would ought to have been recovered. He was travelling for a short distance from Gulbarga to Raichur and it is anybody’s guess why he has chose to travel without the ticket.” Obviously, it is only the guess work of the Tribunal but it is not based on the evidence. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the conclusion of the Tribunal is based on the guess work, but not testing the veracity of the testimony of the PW1 with the rules of evidence. When the affidavit evidence of petitioner is on record saying that he was traveling in the train with a valid ticket, it was necessary for the respondent-Union of India to rebut such evidence and establish at least a possibility that he was not a passenger of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2540 MFA No. 200459 of 2021 the train. Under these circumstances, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha referred supra comes in play. In the said judgment also, precisely the body did not possess any valid ticket. Hence, this Court concludes that the impugned judgment is not sustainable to hold that the deceased was not a passenger of a train. 10. The next aspect would be about the quantum of the compensation. The learned DSGI appearing for the respondent would submit that the date of the incident is 15.10.2014 and therefore, as on that date the quantum of the compensation stood at Rs.4,00,000/-. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant submit that the Apex Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha mentioned supra, has determined the compensation at Rs.8,00,000/- holding that the compensation applicable at the time of determination of the same would be relevant. There cannot any doubt that the compensation was not determined in the year 2014 or any prior date when the quantum of Rs.4,00,000/- stood substituted by Rs.8,00,000/-. When it is substitution, the quantum dates - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2540 MFA No. 200459 of 2021 back to date of statute. Under these circumstances, the submission by learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside. The appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The respondent is directed to disburse the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which the compensation will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53