- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17377 MFA No. 8232 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8232 OF 2017 (RCT) BETWEEN: THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.B.M.KUSHALAPPA, CGC) AND: 1. SMT. R. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE R. SOMASHEKAR, AGE 38 YEARS, 2. KUM.R.NANDINI, D/O LATE R.SOMASHEKAR, AGE 20 YEARS, 3. KUM.R.SANDHYARANI, D/O LATE R.SOMASHEKAR, AGE 19 YEARS, 4. KUM.R.PUJITHA, D/O LATE R.SOMASHEKAR, AGE 12 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17377 MFA No. 8232 of 2017 R.VIJAYLAKSHMI THE 1ST RESPONDENT, 5. SMT.R.GOVINDAMMA, W/O LATE R.RAMAIAH CHETTY, AGE 88 YEARS, ALL R/AT NO.1-383, RAMAKUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. TANVEER PASHA A.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2017 PASSED IN OA II U 7/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF FILING APPLICATION TILL THE DATE OF ORDER AND @ 9% NEXT TO THE AWARD TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17377 MFA No. 8232 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant-Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.02.2017 passed in claim application No.OA II U 007/2014 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants is allowed. 2. It is the case of claimants that the claimants are the wife, daughters and mother of the deceased and the deceased in order to go to Bangarpet, boarded a wrong train and when he came to know that the said train will not stop at Bangarpet, he got panic and attempted to get down from the said train at Bangarpet Railway Station. In that process, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants claim that the deceased was traveling by Train No.12253 Ex-Yeshwantpur-Bhagalpur train to go to Bangarpet, but this train had no scheduled stop at Bangarpet Railway Station. Therefore, he got panic and attempted to get - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17377 MFA No. 8232 of 2017 down from the said train at Bangarpet Railway Station. In that process, he fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Claim application filed by the claimants was allowed and compensation was granted. 3. The Union of India has filed an appeal on the ground that the injuries sustained by the deceased was self inflicted injuries as he had knowledge that if he jump out from the moving train, he would sustain injuries. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is the case of self inflicted injury. Hence, the application is not maintainable. Therefore, he prays to allow the appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that in case if it is held that the death of deceased is due to self inflicted injuries, then the deceased must have intention to sustain injuries himself, then only it could be said that it is injuries by self implication. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17377 MFA No. 8232 of 2017 5. In order to defeat the claim, Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short '1989 Act'), could be attracted. Self injury could be understood only when the person initiates to suffer harm. Therefore, if deceased had intension to commit injury himself, then it could be said self injuries. But considering the facts and circumstances, the deceased after purchasing the ticket to go to Bangarpet Railway Station, boarded a wrong train, which is super fast train, did not have stop at Bangarpet Railway Station and when said train did not stop at Bangarpet Railway Station, due to panic and anxiety, he stepped out from the moving train but unfortunately sustained grievous injuries and this could not be categorized as self injury. Therefore, the facts and circumstances would not come within the provisions under Section 124A of the 1989 Act. In this regard, the Tribunal correctly assessed the evidence and facts and held that the death of the deceased is due to untoward incident and not a self inflicted injury and accordingly, this lead to claim compensation. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17377 MFA No. 8232 of 2017 dismissed. So far as grant of compensation is concerned, it requires modification. 6. Admittedly, the accident is caused on 10.08.2013. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others1, 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/-, then appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondents within a 1 (2023) 6 SCR 329 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17377 MFA No. 8232 of 2017 period of eight weeks. No order as to costs.” 7. 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/-. 8. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled for maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17377 MFA No. 8232 of 2017 application till the date of order and at the rate of 9% to the award till the date of payment. Therefore, the Tribunal had awarded the interest which exceeds Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, as per the principle of law laid down as stated above, the claimants are entitled for maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the Union of India-appellant is partly allowed, by modifying the impugned judgment holding that the claimants are entitled for maximum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- without interest. Excess amount, if any is deposited, the same shall refunded to the Union of India. (ii) No order as to costs. (iii) Draw decree accordingly. (iv) Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the Railway Claims Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29