- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13669 MFA No. 4505 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4505 OF 2017 (RCT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI GURUSWAMAPPA @ GURUSWAMY S/O MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT GURUMALLAMMA @ PARVATHAMMA W/O GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT BERATAHALLI POST, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RANJITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE UNION OF INDIA SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAYS BANGALORE - 560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI.,ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION AND COMPENSATION. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13669 MFA No. 4505 of 2017 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants, assailing the impugned order dated 09.02.2017 passed in O.A.II U 019/2010 by the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short 'the Tribunal') wherein the claim petition is dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The appellants/claimants are the Father and Mother of the deceased Ramesh, who succumbed to the injuries in the Train accident. It is the case of the claimants that on 23.02.2009 the deceased was traveling from Bangalore to Chamarajanagar in a train and fell down from the moving train, sustained fatal injuries to the head and succumbed to the injuries and his body was found on the railway track. The claim petition was dismissed for the reason - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13669 MFA No. 4505 of 2017 that on the dead body of the deceased journey ticket was not found and also claimants have not produced the tickets. Therefore, for this reason it was held that deceased was not a bonafide passenger and dismissed the claim petition. 4. In the claim petition before the Tribunal, the claimants/appellants have filed I.A.No.230/2010 praying for amendment to delete paragraph No.7 in the application that 'II Class Ticket originally seized by Police' and to replace it with 'Original ticket lost, at the time of the accident'. But this interim application was rejected by the Tribunal. The 1st claimant/AW.1, who is the father of the deceased has stated that police have handed over only luggage and have not handed over the lost ticket. AW.1 had not accompanied his son/the deceased and therefore, he has no personal knowledge about how the incident had happened. The Tribunal has only much harped upon on the journey ticket, but has not discussed the other evidence on record. The DRM's report proves the fact that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13669 MFA No. 4505 of 2017 the deceased died in the train accident; though the DRM's report indicates that no ticket was found on the dead body of the deceased and no persons have seen him falling from the train and therefore, it is only opinion of DRM that railway authority is in no way responsible for the death of the deceased. But the DRM's report proves the fact that Ramesh died in the railway accident. Non finding of tickets from the dead body of deceased, is not the reason to reject the claim petition. Therefore, the railway authority is liable to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed objections for grant of compensation to the claimants stating that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. 6. Therefore, on considering the aforesaid legal position, in a train accident if a person dies and dead body is taken to the mortuary for conducting post mortem examination, then there is every chance that the ticket might have been lost. Therefore, just because ticket is not produced, cannot be taken as a ground to reject the claim - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13669 MFA No. 4505 of 2017 petition. When the DRM report states that death of the deceased is due to the train accident, then the claimants would be entitled to compensation. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DOLI RANI SAHA VS. UNION OF INDIA1 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 is reproduced below: "29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the 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." 1 (2024) 9 SCC 656 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13669 MFA No. 4505 of 2017 8. The accident occurred on 23.02.2009. Therefore, as per Schedule II of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and if the said lumpsum amount is lesser than Rs.8,00,000/- then the claimants are entitled to a maximum of Rs.8,00,000/- in lumpsum. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others2, wherein at paragraph No.23 it is held as under: “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/-, 2 (2023) 6 SCR 329 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13669 MFA No. 4505 of 2017 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.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in cases where the accident has occurred in the year 2003, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded along with interest from the date of petition till the date of realization and also it is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the claimants would be entitled to 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 claimants and if this figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants/claimants are entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13669 MFA No. 4505 of 2017 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 09.02.2017 passed in O.A.II U 019/2010 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is set aside. iii. The appellants/claimants are entitled to statutory compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of realization. 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 claimants are entitled to 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 claimants and if this figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13669 MFA No. 4505 of 2017 appellants/claimants are entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. v. No order as to costs. vi. Draw award accordingly. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37