- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29788 MFA No. 2429 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2429 OF 2024 (RCT) BETWEEN: THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, RAIL SOUDHA, HUBBALLI KARNATAKA 580020, …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VIJALAKSHMI SHARANAYYA PATRIMATH D/O GURLINGAYYA A HIREMATH W/O SHARANYYA PATRIMATH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SMT. JAYASHREE V GALI D/O GURLINGAYYA HIREMATH W/O VASANTH GALI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SMT SUJATHA GANGADHARAMATH D/O GURLINGAYYAHIREMATH W/O GANGADHARAYYA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE ALL R/AT HANUMANTHAPPA VAGGAR BUILDING, VADDARA ONI, UNAKAL, P B ROAD, HUBBALI 580020. KARNATAKA STATE Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29788 MFA No. 2429 of 2024 4. SMT. VANAJAKSHI HIREMATH D/O GURULINGAYYA HIREMATH, W/O VIRUPAKSHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT GOJANUR VILLAGE, SHIRAHATI TALUK GADAG DIST …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K G SHANTHARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DT. 04.07.2022 PASSED BY THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IN OA.II (U) NO. 64/2018 ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 R/W SECTION 124 A AND 125 OF INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/Union of India, South Western Railway, Rail Soudha, Hubballi being aggrieved by the award dated 04.07.2022 passed in OAII (U) No.64/2018 on the file of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29788 MFA No. 2429 of 2024 Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru1, thereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants is allowed. 3. It is the case of the claimants that on 21.04.2016, while the deceased was traveling along with her daughter namely Smt.Vanajakshi Hiremath, with a ticket by Hubballi-Sholapura passenger train from Hubballi to Gadag and when the train reached Gadag Railway Station platform due heavy rush and the push and pull of the passengers, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train and sustained grievous injuries and she was shifted to Gadag District Government Hospital for treatment, where she died while undergoing treatment. While shifting the injured from the accident spot to hospital, the ticket was lost. 4. The claimants (respondents herein) being daughters of the deceased have filed the claim petition 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29788 MFA No. 2429 of 2024 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimants. 5. The appellant-Union of India has filed this present appeal by raising various grounds and learned counsel for the appellant in consonance with the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal has argued that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as the deceased was not having the journey ticket. Further, as per the admission of the applicant No.1/AW-1, who is the daughter of the deceased, claimant No.4-Smt.Vanajakshi Hiremath, who was traveling with the deceased, is not a mentally sound person hence, submitted that claimant No.4 being not mentally sound, does not know how the incident occurred. Therefore, when such being the case, the incident is not believable. Hence, it is proved that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and submitted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29788 MFA No. 2429 of 2024 that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not correct and prays to allow the appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants justified the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. Upon considering the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 to A16, conclusively prove the fact that the deceased died on the railway platform at Gadag. Exs.A1- copy of FIR, A2-copy of message from Chief Medical Officer, A3-copy of Inquest Report, A4-PME report, A6-Police Final report also prove the fact that the death of the deceased was due to railway accident. The question then is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not? 8. Admittedly, the journey ticket was not collected from the body of the deceased or from claimant No.4, who is daughter of the deceased. Claimant No.4 is examined as AW.2. However, the respondents/claimants being - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29788 MFA No. 2429 of 2024 daughters of the deceased have filed an affidavit stating that the deceased had travelled from Hubli to Gadag after purchasing a ticket accompanied by AW.2. It is stated that AW.2 is mentally unsound, but there is no evidence of a false history of mental unsoundness. The Tribunal assessed the demeanor of AW.2 and recorded that her behavior during cross-examination was found to be normal and appeared to be in a good state of mind to answer the questions. Therefore, the Tribunal believed the affidavit of AW.2 and held that the claimants had discharged their burden to prove that the deceased was bona fide passenger. When this was the fact, the onus shifted to the Railway to prove that the deceased was not holding journey ticket, which was not discharged. Therefore, the claimants proved the fact that the deceased after purchasing journey ticket had travelled along with her daughter-claimant No.4, but died in the railway accident as stated above. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29788 MFA No. 2429 of 2024 9. Upon considering and re-appreciating evidence on record, it is proved that the deceased is found to be a bona fide passenger. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation, which needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 11. The entire amount shall be disbursed as per the ratio of proportionate holdings as determined by the Tribunal without insisting on depositing the amount. 12. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE BS/SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31