- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 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. 5603 OF 2017 (RCT) BETWEEN: 1. FHAJALANABI W/O AMINASAB MULLA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. BHISMILLA D/O AMINASAB MULLA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3. HUSEN S/O AMINASAB MULLA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 4. HEENA D/O AMINASAB MULLA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 5. LALASAB S/O AMINASAB MULLA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.120, BIJAPUR WARD NO.16, YOGAPUR COLONY AND ENVIRONMENT HOUSES NO.1 TO 1070, OTHER HOUSES, VIJAYAPUR-586101 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A. MANJULA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 of 2017 AND: THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHANTHIBHUSHAN, DSGI) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2017, PASSED IN OA II U138/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION AS PER FINDINGS AND SPEAKING ORDER IN THE FOREGOING PARAS. 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 judgment dated 13.04.2017 passed in O.A.II U 138/2015 by the Judicial Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, (for short 'the Tribunal') wherein the claim petition is dismissed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 of 2017 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records. 3. The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased AminasabMulla. It is the case of the claimants that on 06.04.2015, AminasabMulla purchased ticket at Vijayapur Railway Station to travel from Vijayapur to Limbala, accidentally he fell down from the moving train and sustained fatal/grievous injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition, but the same is dismissed on the ground that no intimation was given to the Railway Police Station about the death of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that reasons given by the Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition is not correct. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 of 2017 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India justifies the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. Exhibit A1 is the copy of the message from DY.SS/MNL to SI/GRP/BJP dated 6.04.2015 which reads that loco pilot of the train sent message through Walkie Talkie that a male dead body is lying/found on the track between Bijapur and Minchinahal. Ex.A2 is the copy of the FIR registered under UDR No.11/2015 by PSI/Railway Police Station/Bijapur. Ex.A.3 is the Post Mortem Report wherein the concerned Doctor has stated that 'cause of death is due to hemorrhagic shock as a result off multiple injuries to vital organs and auto amputation'. Ex.A4 is the Inquest Report which reads opinion of the panchas as 'Deceased fell down from moving train, got his hands and legs cut, suffered grievous injuries to his head and accidentally got run over and died on the spot'. These documentary evidence coupled with the evidence of the claimants prove the fact that the deceased died in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 of 2017 railway accident. Just because journey ticket was not found on the dead body of the deceased is not a ground to say that the death is not because of railway accident. When the death occurred and immediately the body was shifted to the hospital to conduct the post mortem, during the said time the ticket might have been lost. Therefore, the Tribunal is not correct in dismissing the claim petition on the reason the railway ticket was not found on the dead body. Quite naturally the claimants have not accompanied the deceased. Therefore, they could not produce the journey ticket. Further it is proved that dead body was found in the railway accident as discussed above. Therefore, the claimants are 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 1 (2024) 9 SCC 656 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 of 2017 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." 8. 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 2 (2023) 6 SCR 329 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 of 2017 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in case the accident 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 claimant is 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/-. 10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 of 2017 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 13.04.2017 passed in O.A.II U 138/2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru, 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 appellants/claimants - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 of 2017 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.: 38 CT:SG - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [FHAJALANABI AND OTHERS VS. THE UNION OF INDIA] 17.06.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’ This Court on 01.04.2025 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 claimants are 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 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/-.” 2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KAMUKAYI AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS3 has observed at paragraph No.22, which reads as follows: 3 (2023) 19 SCC 116 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 of 2017 “22. The said judgment was further explained by this Court in Radha Yadav4, 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 Devi5 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 4 Union of India V. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410 5 Union of India V. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 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 appellants/claimants. If the final figure comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants/claimants are 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 appellants/claimants and if the final amount comes less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13675 MFA No. 5603 of 2017 5. The appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation with equal apportionment. 6. With the above said observations, memo for ‘being spoken to’ is allowed. 7. The entire amount shall be released in favour of the appellants/claimants by making payment to the bank account of respective appellants/claimants. 8. The respondent/Railway Authorities shall disburse and deposit the compensation amount after receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. This order shall be part and parcel of the order dated 01.04.2025. 10. The entire amount shall be released in favour of the appellants/claimants by making payment to the bank account of respective appellants/claimants. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3