- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7281 OF 2022 (RCT) BETWEEN: 1. H.RAJANNA, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. ASHA, W/O H. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. ANJUSHREE R., D/O H. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NO.50, 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS, SIR.M.V. LAYOUT, THINDHU KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 097. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA G CONTRACTOR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.23(1) OF RAILWAY TRIBUNAL CLAIMS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IN O.A.II(U)No.56/2019 DATED 01.07.2022, BY AWARDING THE COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though this appeal is posted for Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. The claimants/appellants, who are the father, mother and sister of the deceased Manoj, who died in the railway accident that occurred on 02.08.2018, have preferred this appeal, questioning the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2022 passed by the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Tribunal") in OAII (U) No.56 of 2019. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 3. The claim application of the appellants came to be dismissed by the Tribunal, on the reason that the deceased Manoj had died hours after he had completed his journey, and as such he was no longer a passenger. It further held that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger of any train and that his death is not an "untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Railways Act"). 4. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was studying B.E. in Mechanical Engineering in Presidency College, Bengaluru and had been to a trip to Goa and after completion of the Goa trip, he reached Hubballi. At Hubballi Railway Station, he purchased a ticket for travel from Hubballi to Davanagere and boarded the train. The said Train reached Harihara Railway Station and within a span of two to three minutes, it departed and at that time, due to heavy crowd in the train, the deceased fell - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 down from the train and sustained injuries and died on the spot. 5. The claimants filed the claim application before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of a sum of `8,00,000/-, for the death of deceased Manoj in the railway accident. 6. The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim, examined claimant No.1 (father) as AW-1, who got marked twelve (12) documents from Exhibits A-1 to A-12. On the other hand, the respondent - Railway Authority got examined G. Thakriya Naik, a Sr.Pass/Guard, SWR/Mysore as RW-1. He produced three documents from Exhibits R-1 to R-3, which included the DRM report. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application of the claimants on the ground that the deceased was found dead in between two tracks at Km No.336/300-400 in between Amaravati-Harihara - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 Railway Stations adjacent to the Railway track. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries found on the body and the position in which the dead body was found on the railway track, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was a suicide, but not a railway accident or an untoward incident. On this ground alone, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants/appellants. 8. The claimant No.1 - father of the deceased Manoj has given evidence, deposing that the deceased who is his son was studying II Semester B.E. in Mechanical Engineering at the Presidency College, Rajanakunte, Bangalore, and had been for a trip to Goa and while returning to Davanagere, came to Hubballi and purchased a ticket at the Hubballi Railway Station. It is further deposed by this witness that, prior to the death of the deceased, he had informed the deceased that he should meet his uncle Shivappa who is residing in Harihara while returning from Goa. With this reason, the deceased while - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 traveling from Hubballi to Davanagere, moved from the Harihara Railway Station and suddenly trying to alight from the moving train, fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. 9. Ex.A-1 is the FIR, on the basis of the complaint filed by the SS/Davanagere Railway Station; Ex.A-2 is the copy of message from SM/HRR to SI/GRP/DVS stating that a male dead body was found at Km.No.336/300-400; Ex.A-3 is the copy of the journey ticket; Ex.A-4 is the copy of the inquest report; Ex.A-5 is the Post-Mortem Examination report; Ex.A-6 is the statement of AW-1, Ex.A-7 is the copy of the police final report and Exs.A-8 to A-12 are the documents pertaining to the personal details of the deceased and his family members. All these documents prove the fact that the deceased had died in the railway accident. The evidence of AW-1 is corroborated by all these documentary evidence. Ex.A-3 is the copy of the train journey ticket, found from the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, it is proved that the deceased, after - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 having purchased the ticket and travelled in the train, had fallen from the train and died in the railway accident. 10. It is the defence of the respondent- Railway authorities that, the deceased had committed suicide and that it is not an "untoward incident" so as to fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124A of the Railways Act. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the claim application. 11. The reason assigned by the Tribunal for dismissing the claim application of the claimants is that the dead body of the deceased was found lying between the two tracks. Only on this ground, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding that it is not an untoward incident, but is a suicide. The DRM report (Ex.R-3) is discussed by the Tribunal at paragraph 12 (b) of its judgment. The Tribunal completely relied upon the statement of the Pointsman. But upon perusal of the DRM report, especially the statement given by the Pointsman, it reveals that, on arrival of the train to Harihara Railway Station, the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 deceased got down slowly from the moving train, instead of Davanagere, by mistake. It is further the statement of the said Pointsman that the deceased was in a depressed mood. But it can be seen that the said Pointsman is not examined by the respondent Railway Authorities. However, the opinion of the Pointsman that the deceased was in a depressed mood is not at all forthcoming in his evidence. Quite naturally, after long journey in the train during night journey, the face of a person is likely to be not fresh. But, that does not mean that the person is in a depressed mood. Thus, the observation/opinion of the Pointsman in this regard that the deceased was in a depressed mood, is not believable. 12. Furthermore, the said Pointsman is not at all examined before the Tribunal to elicit any further information from him. Admittedly, the railway journey ticket was found in the pocket of the deceased. When such being the case, what was the necessity for the deceased to purchase the ticket, if he had intended to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 commit suicide. The dead body of the deceased was found near the Railway Station. If at all the deceased had any intention to commit suicide, he could have done far away from the Railway Station but not inside the Railway Station, where there is high likelihood/probability of presence of railway guards/personnel and huge public/crowd. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, the Tribunal, based on assumption and presumption, has come to such a wrong conclusion that the deceased must have committed suicide. The said finding is liable to be set aside. 13. Thus, in addition to the other evidence on record, especially from the DRM report produced by the respondent at Ex.R-3, it is proved that the death of the deceased is an untoward incident and not a suicide, as discussed above. Hence, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is found to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Accordingly, this Court is of the view - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 that the claimants are entitled to just and reasonable compensation as per Section 124A of the Railways Act. 14. As per Section 124A of the Railways Act, the compensation is payable on the principle of 'strict liability'. Therefore, the claimants have proved their claim as discussed above and are entitled for compensation from the respondent-railway authorities. Therefore, the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 15. The deceased died in an untoward incident that occurred in the Railway Station on 02.08.2018. As per amendment to "The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990", which came into effect from the 1st of January 2017 as "The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016", as per Part-I of the Schedule to it, the claimants are entitled to compensation of `8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed; (ii) The impugned judgment dated 01.07.2022, passed in claim application No.OAII(U) No.56/2019, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, at Secunderabad, is hereby set aside; (iii) Consequently, the claim application of the claimants/appellants is allowed. The claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of `8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claimants being father, mother and sister of the deceased, respectively, the entire compensation shall be released in their favour in the ratio of 40:40:20, respectively; - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16480 MFA No. 7281 of 2022 (iv) The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondent Railway authorities, within a period of eight weeks; (v) No order as to costs. (vi) Draw the decree accordingly. (vii) Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, forthwith. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35