- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12746 MFA No. 2965 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2965 OF 2019 (RCT) BETWEEN: 1. ANNAPA TOTANNANAVAR S/O SANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. AKKAMMA TOTANNANAVAR W/O ANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O NAGENDRANAMATTI HAVERI CITY …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND: THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI - 580 020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN.H, DSGI) THIS MFA FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED18.01.2019 PASSED IN OA II U 163 of 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12746 MFA No. 2965 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The applicants in OA II U 163 of 2017 have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 18.0.2019 passed in OA II U 163 of 2017 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) thereby, the claim petition filed by the applicants was dismissed on the reasons that there was no train ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased and the applicants were not eye witnesses to the incident and no eye witnesses were examined. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the applicants that on 09.12.2016, the deceased, a bonafide passenger was travelling from Haveri to Harihara to purchase flowers for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12746 MFA No. 2965 of 2019 his marriage and in the process of the same, he boarded some unknown train and accidently fell down from the moving train near home signal of Haveri Railway Station towards Byadagi and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was travelling with valid journey ticket from Haveri to Harihara, but the same was lost in the incident. The claim petition was filed by the applicants, who are legal heirs of the deceased, but it was dismissed on the grounds that no journey ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased, the applicants were not eye witnesses to the incident and eye witness was not examined. 4. Being aggrieved by it, the applicants have preferred this present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that just because the ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased is not the ground to dismiss the claim petition by holding that the deceased was not - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12746 MFA No. 2965 of 2019 bonafide passenger. In fact, the deceased had purchased a ticket and since the deceased died in the accident the ticket was lost and at that time the applicants were not on the spot. Therefore, just because loss of ticket is not the ground to say that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. 6. Furthermore, by placing reliance on the following judgments argued that it is not expected that the applicants to be eye witness to the accident and the claim petition cannot be dismissed only on the grounds that the applicants are not eye witnesses. 1. MRS. SUNITHA W/O SHANTHA KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. THE UNION OF INDIA1 (Mrs. Sunitha’s Case) 2. RAJ KUMARI AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA2 (Raj Kumari’s Case) 3. UNION OF INDIA VS. HARI NARAYAN GUPTA3 (Hari Narayan’s Case) 1 MFA NO.200914/2014 2 1993 0 ACJ 846 3 2008 0 ACJ 822 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12746 MFA No. 2965 of 2019 4. BASIR ALIAS MOHD. AHMED KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER4 (Basir Alias Mohd’s Case) 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant/respondent justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the Railway accident. In order to prove the case, the applicants have got marked documentary evidence as Exs.A-1 to A-14. The documentary evidence, including FIR, DRM’s report, investigation report, inquest panchanama and statements of father-in-law and mother of the deceased confirms that the deceased died in the Railway accident. Just because the ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased is not the ground to say that he was not bonafide passenger. In this regard, I place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Deva5. 4 2025 0 BHC(AS) 652 5 AIR 2018 SC 2362 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12746 MFA No. 2965 of 2019 9. Further the claimants are not eye witnesses, but they have stated in the claim petition and in their evidence, the information they received from the Railway. It cannot be expected that the applicants must be eye witnesses to allow the claim. Therefore, it is worthwhile to refer the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of RAJ KUMARI (Supra) at paragraph No.5 has held as follows: “5.The main question that arises in this case is on whom the onus of proof lies in such claim cases and whether any presumption under the Evidence Act can be raised. Normally under Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, the burden to prove such facts, on which the legal right or liability depends, is on such person who asserts existence of these facts. But the question before us is whether the burden of proof that the deceased held a valid ticket, pass or permission during his journey, in which he died in accident, can be placed on his dependants. Obviously, such burden of proof is impossible to be discharged by the dependants, who can have no means of knowledge, whether the deceased, before boarding the train, had purchased a valid ticket, pass or permission from the railway authorities. It is likely that such a deceased passenger held a valid ticket, pass or permission, but the same is lost in the accident with the death of person and loss of his belongings, if any.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12746 MFA No. 2965 of 2019 10. In similar circumstances this Court in MRS. SUNITHA’s Case (Supra) has observed as follows: “No doubt, none of the passengers in the train in which the deceased was said to be travelling have given their statement about the deceased also being one of the passengers in the train. However, absence of any such statement of any other passenger would not take away the evidentiary value of the statement of AW.1 that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train.” 11. Therefore, just because the applicants were not eye witnesses to the incident does not negate the evidence provided by the Railway’s statement of AW-1 before the Tribunal, which is corroborated by the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A-1 to A-14 above stated. In this regard, the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim petition. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in case the accident was occurred in the year 2003 and awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 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 applicants - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12746 MFA No. 2965 of 2019 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 applicants/claimants are entitled to a maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned order and award dated 18.01.2019 passed in OA II U 163 of 2017on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, is hereby set aside. iii. The applicants are entitled compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv. Upon deposit of the amount, 50% shall be released to the applicants and the remaining amount shall be invested in the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12746 MFA No. 2965 of 2019 claimants’ name. The remaining 50% of compensation amount shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of five years. v. No order as to costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23