- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2275 OF 2017 (RCT) BETWEEN: THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY HUBLI- 580 020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANGOWDAR, CGC) AND: 1. SMT. AKKAVVA WIFE OF LATE MAHESH KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT NOGANIHAL VILLAGE, HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT- 590 001. 2. SMT BHARATHI WIFE OF NILLAPPA KOLAKAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT HALASI VILLAGE, KHANPUR TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT- 590 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.TANVEER PASHA.A.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2016 PASSED ON OA II U 44/2014 BY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BENCH, BANGALORE BENCH AND CONSEQUENTIALLY REJECT THE ENTIRE CLAIM APPLICATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the appellant/Union of India challenging the order dated 14.11.2016 passed in OA II U 44/2014 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), whereby the claim application filed by the applicants was allowed and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Mahesh Kumar on 05.11.2013, after purchasing ticket from Belgaum to Londa to visit her daughter, boarded the general compartment of Ajmer - Yeshwantpur Express - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017 train but during his journey, due to heavy rush and jerk of the train, lost his balance, fell down from the running train in between Londa-Gunji Railway Station and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, respondents herein have filed application for claiming compensation and the Tribunal has allowed the application and granted compensation. 3. Being aggrieved by this, the appellant-Union of India has preferred the present appeal by rising various contentions. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as from the records, it is revealed that the deceased has purchased the journey ticket from Pacchappur to Belagavi but for travel from Belagavi to Londa, the ticket was not recovered but the accident was caused in between Londa - Gunju Railway station. Therefore, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Hence, grant of compensation is not correct. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017 4. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that AW-2 is an eye witness that both AW-2 and the deceased had travelled and AW-2 had stepped out from the train before the destination of the deceased and it is the evidence of AW-2 that both the deceased and AW-2 had purchased the journey ticket from Belgaum to Londa and thereafter, AW-2 had stepped out from the train, the accident occurred and he came to know about the accident after 4 days from the date of accident. Therefore, submitted that from the evidence of AW-2, it is proved that the deceased had purchased the journey ticket from Belgaum to Londa and also the fact that the ticket found from the body of the deceased is from Pachapur to Belgaum; to rectify this fact, the deceased had purchased the journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger and this is rightly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, justified the order passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017 5. In the present case, upon considering and re-appreciating the evidence on record, the appellant is not disputing fact that the deceased had purchased the journey ticket from Pachapur to Belgaum. Admittedly, the accident is caused in between the railway stations of Londa to Gunjii, AW-2 is an eye witness accompanied the deceased while travelling and he has stepped out from the train before the destination of the deceased and thereafter the deceased had travelled alone. Therefore, from this evidence, it cannot be inferred that the deceased has not produced journey ticket and the eye witness stated that both the deceased and AW-2 had purchased journey tickets and had travelled from Belgaum to Londa also. 6. When this being the evidence revealed and also moreover from the FIR statement, Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem Report and DRM's report, it is found that the death of the deceased is due to railway accident. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39925 MFA No. 2275 of 2017 7. When this being the fact revealed from the evidence on record, the Tribunal is correct in holding that deceased is the bonafide passenger and died in the railway accident; accordingly, granted compensation, which needs no interference. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as there is no perversity and illegality found in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs' if any, shall stand disposed of. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA/SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53