- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16715 MFA No. 6673 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6673 OF 2017 (RCT-) BETWEEN: THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI - 560 020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANGADI S V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHAHEENA @ SHAHEEDA W/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 2. BABA @ SHEIK BABA S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 3. PADMA @ SALMA D/O ALTE LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF PADMAVATHI SRINIVASA BUILDING, ALLASANDRA, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 043. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16715 MFA No. 6673 of 2017 (BY SRI. DHANANJAYA P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT 1987, (CENTRAL ACT.NO.54 OF 1987) AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED:16.02.2017 PASSED IN OA II U 085/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (BANGALORE BENCH), ALLOWING THE 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 posted for Admission and the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellant-Union of India has preferred this appeal questioning the judgment and award dated 16.02.2017 passed in O.A. II U 085/2016 by the Railway Claims Tribunal (Bangalore Bench), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim application of the claimants and granted compensation on account of the death of deceased Lakshminarayana, in railway accident that occurred on 15.03.2016, when the deceased was travelling from Sri Sathya Sai Prashanthi Nilayam to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16715 MFA No. 6673 of 2017 Basampaalli, and accidentally, the deceased fell down from the moving train and died on the spot. 3. The claim Tribunal has allowed the claim application made by the claimants and granted compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application till the date of passing of the order and at the rate of 9% p.a. next to the award till the date of payment. 4. The grounds urged by the appellant-Union of India are that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger and methodology adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the schedule, and DRM report was also not given weightage. Therefore, the appellant-Union of India has questioned the judgment passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered that the DRM report, wherein it was proved that the passenger was dead in the accident, and also considered the procedure laid down in the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2003. According to the provisions, the DRM investigation report was prepared and based on this report, it is proved that the death of the deceased was occurred due to the railway accident. Though the Tribunal has not - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16715 MFA No. 6673 of 2017 recorded the claimants' oral evidence, but from the documentary evidence itself, it is proved that the death of the deceased occurred in the railway accident. The document especially DRM report, itself proved that the death of the deceased is due to the railway accident. Thus, the DRM report is an acceptable evidence in proving that the death of the deceased occurred in the railway accident. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in not examining the evidence of the claimants. 5. Further, the journey ticket was collected from the body of the deceased and therefore, it is proved that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger. Just because the Tribunal has not permitted the appellant-Union of India to examine police regarding the conduct of inquest panchanama, it is not fatal to the case. There is some delay in conducting inquest panchanama, but it does not take away the fact of death of the deceased in the railway accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has magnanimously considered the case and arrived at the conclusion that the death of the deceased is due to the railway accident and accordingly, granted compensation as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16715 MFA No. 6673 of 2017 stated above. The tribunal has correctly assessed the evidence and granted compensation. 6. Regarding quantum of compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others1, at paragraph No.23, has 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/-, 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.” 7. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.8 lakhs in maximum and the same is followed by the Tribunal in the 1 (2023) 6 SCR 329 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16715 MFA No. 6673 of 2017 present case and accordingly, awarded the compensation. Therefore, considering all the aspects of the case, there is no justifiable ground made out by the appellant-Union of India to interfere with the judgment passed by the Tribunal. 8. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:SK