- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1885 OF 2017 (RCT) BETWEEN: MANJULA W/O LATE. HEMANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: MALLSANDRA, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DIST. PIN-572135. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A MANJULA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI-580020. 2. T. A. CHINNANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE ARJUNAPPA, POLICE CONSTABLE, R/AT NO.1347, SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE ROAD, TEPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN-572135. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. DESAI (SPCG), ADV. FOR R1, R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED: 01.01.2016 PASSED IN OA II U 121/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant questioning the order dated 01.01.2016 passed in OA II U 121/2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal has dismissed the claim application on the reason that the appellant/applicant has not produced documentary evidence to show that the first applicant is the wife of the deceased and second applicant is the brother of the deceased. 2. It is the case of the applicants that on 07.12.2011, the deceased after procuring the journey ticket at Tiptur railway station traveled by Arasikere- Bangalore Push Pull train between Nelamangala and Birnayakanahalli railway stations, accidentally fell down - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 from the train, sustained injuries and thereafter, succumbed to the injuries. 3. Upon filing of claim application by the applicants, the Tribunal has dismissed the application on the reason that the applicants have not adduced evidence that applicant No.1 has not produced any document to show that she is the wife of deceased. 4. It is not in dispute that the deceased has procured the journey ticket while travelling in Arasikere- Bangalore Push Pull train between Nelamangala and Birnayakanahalli railway stations, accidentally fell down from the train, sustained injuries and thereafter, succumbed to the injuries. 5. The appellant herein is examined as AW.1 and stated that she is the wife of the deceased and deceased had traveled in the train and met with an accident. There is no evidence to prove this fact by the respondent No.1. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 6. The appellant is duly sworn before the authority that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased in response to the contra evidence of the respondent No.1 that the appellant is not the wife of the deceased. It cannot be held that the appellant herein is not the wife of the deceased, whereas other documents such as First Information Report, complaint, inquest report, post mortem report and final report by the investigating officer goes to show that the deceased died because he accidentally fell down from the train. Therefore, the appellant has given evidence that she is the wife of the deceased with regard to contra evidence that she is not the wife of deceased and the said conclusion by the Tribunal is not correct. 7. Ex.A10 is the genealogical tree indicates the name of the deceased and the name of applicant/AW.1 which establish the facts that the appellant is the wife of the deceased. The said genealogical tree is issued by the Village Accountant, Maragere Village. When this being the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 scenario, the documentary evidence produced coupled with the evidence of AW.1 proves the fact that the appellant is the wife of deceased. 8. Applicant No.2 is the brother of the deceased who is examined as AW.2 wherein he has given evidence that appellant is the wife of deceased. When this being the evidence on record, the approach of the Tribunal is not correct in dismissing the application. Therefore, the judgment passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 9. Since the appellant has proved that she is the wife of the deceased, she is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of application till the date of its realization. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others1, wherein at paragraph No.23 it is held as under: 1 (2023) 6 SCR 329 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 “23. Accordingly and as per above discussion we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed by the High Court and also the Claims Tribunal dated 29.06.2017. Consequently, claim application is allowed. The appellants are held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its realisation. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondents within a period of eight weeks. No order as to costs.” 11. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in case the accident was occurred in the year 2003 the compensation to be awarded is Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest from the date of petition till the date of realization. It is also made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 12. In the case on hand, the accident was occurred on 07.12.2011. As per the schedule for awarding statutory compensation for the death occurred in these types of accidents, the maximum compensation ought to be awarded is Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., maximum of Rs.8,00,000/- in lumpsum. The schedule compensation is amended with effect from 01.01.2017. The accident is occurred before the amendment. Hence, the appellant is entitled to a statutory compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Miscellaneous First appeal allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 01.01.2016 passed in OA II U 121/2012 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is set aside. iii. The appellant being the wife of deceased is entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization- maximum to 8,00,000/-. iv. It is also made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the present case also, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization is awarded to the appellant and if this figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellant is entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. v. No order as to costs. vi. Draw decree accordingly. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 vii. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the Railway Claims Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [MANJULA VS. THE UNION OFINDIA AND ANOTHER] 17.06.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’ This Court on 17.04.2025 has disposed of the appeal. In the operative portion of the order at clause (iv) it is ordered as follows: iv. “It is also made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellant is entitled to a Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the present case also, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of claim application till the date of realization is awarded to the appellant and if this figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellant is entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.” 2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KAMUKAYI AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS2 has observed at paragraph No.22, which reads as follows: 2 (2023) 19 SCC 116 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 “22. The said judgment was further explained by this Court in Radha Yadav3, relevant para 11 is reproduced as thus: “11. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi4 is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures would be the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000 the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of 3 Union of India V. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410 4 Union of India V. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 Rs.8,00,000. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration.” 3. Therefore, as per this order, if the compensation amount awarded with interest exceeds a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, then the compensation would be in terms of figure excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in the present case also, the accident occurred is before 01.01.2017. Hence, by granting award of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, if it exceeds Rs.8,00,000/-, then the said exceeded amount shall be given to the appellant. If the final figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellant is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. Therefore, clause (iv) in the operative portion is modified to the extent that if the award amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realization exceeds Rs.8,00,000/-, then such exceeded amount shall be paid to the appellant - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16022 MFA No. 1885 of 2017 and if the final amount comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellant is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. 5. With the above said observations, memo for ‘being spoken to’ is allowed. 6. The entire amount shall be released in favour of the appellant by making payment to the bank account of respective appellant. 7. The respondent/Railway Authorities shall disburse and deposit the compensation amount after receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. This order shall be part and parcel of the order dated 17.04.2025. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2