Smt. Parvathamma vs Union of India

N. Ananda

The claim for compensation filed by appellant for the death of her husband before Railway Claims Tribunal has been dismissed. Therefore, she is before this Court. The appellant had made a claim for compensation on account of death of her husband namely Kumbara Mallappa in an untoward incident that took place on 03.04.2005 when the deceased was travelling in Train No. 581 from Birur to Davanagere.

As per the case of claimant, when her husband was standing near the door, there was a jolt, as a result of which he was thrown out of train and died and compensation was sought on the ground that deceased Kumbara Mallappa died in an untoward incident.

The learned Judge of Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition, inter alia holding:-

(i) Claimant has failed to prove that her husband was a bonafide passenger;

(ii) As per evidence of claimant, deceased fell down from moving train, therefore it was a self-inflicting injury and respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

I have heard Sri Manjunatha Pattanashetty, Learned Counsel for claimant and Sri N.S. Sanjay Gowda, Learned Counsel for respondent.

It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that husband of claimant died after falling from train No. 581 which was proceeding from Birur to Davanagere. It is also not in dispute that communication about the untoward incident was given to the Railway Police at Arasikere. The Arasikere Railway Police submitted a report.

The learned Judge of Railway Claims Tribunal has held that tickets produced by claimant were issued on 02.04.2005, whereas the accident took place on 03.04.2005. Therefore, railway tickets produced by claimant cannot be taken into consideration to hold that deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger. The learned Judge of Railway Claims Tribunal has held that deceased while spitting betel nut had fallen from train. The deceased should have made use of wash basin provided in the compartment. Therefore, injuries suffered by deceased were self-inflicted injuries. In the circumstances, respondent is not liable to pay compensation in terms of section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ''the Act'')".

The learned Judge of Railway Claims Tribunal has not considered all the documents to record a finding whether deceased was a bonafide passenger or not. The learned Judge of Railway Claims Tribunal has not considered the report filed by Arasikere Railway Police and legal position. The learned Judge of Railway Claims Tribunal has failed to notice that soon after the accident, dead body was removed by Arasikere Railway Police. After inquest, dead body was given to the custody of claimant. In the circumstances, it was for the respondent to establish that deceased was not a bonafide passenger and deceased did not possess a valid ticket.

As already stated, the learned Judge of Railway Claims Tribunal has held that injuries suffered by deceased were self-inflicting injuries due to his own negligent act and claimant cannot claim compensation under the head "untoward incident" u/s 124A of the Act, which is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, .

The learned Judge of Railway Claims Tribunal has ignored material documents and has not considered the claim petition in proper perspective. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion the matter requires reconsideration. In the result, I pass the following:-

ORDER

The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, to decide the claim on merits, in the light of the observations made herein and in accordance with law, within a period of six months from today. Both parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence, if they so desire.