Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2250 (KAR)

Union of India v. Darshan G.

2019-12-04

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent is served and unrepresented. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench. 3. An application came to be filed by one Sri Govindaraju on behalf of his son Master Darshan (for short referred to as 'the injured applicant') who was a minor at the time of filing of the application claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 alleging that the injured applicant received injuries in an untoward incident that occurred on 19.08.2014. 4. The brief facts of the case as per the application filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short referred to as 'the Tribunal') are that on 19.08.2014, the injured applicant had to go to Tumakuru from Yeshwanthpura Railway Station by 7.30 p.m. by the Golgumbaz train. Accordingly, he purchased a journey ticket. As it was crowded, while boarding the train at Yeshwanthpura Railway Station, the train moved and the injured lost his balance and accidentally fell down from the train and both his legs got amputated. Thereafter, he was shifted to ESI hospital, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. He was treated as an inpatient and accordingly, due to the injuries sustained, he has made the claim application. 5. The appellant herein filed its reply statement to the application taking the defence that the injured was not a bona fide passenger and the incident has not occurred in the manner stated by the injured applicant in his claim application but on the contrary, injured has jumped before the engine/loco of the train No.16535 at Yeshwanthpura Railway Station to commit suicide and accordingly, the appellant herein prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Whether the injured applicant was a bona-fide passenger? 2. Whether the injuries sustained by the applicant are due to an untoward incident and whether the respondent is exempted under provisions of Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989? 3. Whether the injured applicant is entitled for any relief and the interest as prayed for in the application? If so, to what extent?" 7. The injured applicant and the respondent before the Tribunal have led their evidence. 3. Whether the injured applicant is entitled for any relief and the interest as prayed for in the application? If so, to what extent?" 7. The injured applicant and the respondent before the Tribunal have led their evidence. The injured applicant adduced evidence as AW-I and one Sri S.Jagadeesan, Loco Pilot, South Western Railway, Bengaluru adduced evidence as AW-II and produced documentary evidence from Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8 and Exh.R-1 to Exh.R-3 on the respondent's side. 8. The only defence taken by the appellant herein before the Tribunal and also before this Court is that the said incident is not an untoward incident and that the injured applicant had tried to cross the railway track and while doing so, he jumped before the train to commit suicide. When train No.16535 Ex. MYSSUR entering into Yeshwanthpura Railway Station and consequently got hit by the train which resulted in amputation of both legs and accordingly, as the injured was not a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident and that the injury was not an untoward incident, hence, the appellant herein need not to pay the compensation to the injured applicant. 9. On the contrary, this argument and defence of the appellant herein was not accepted by the Tribunal. Considering the fact that a message was given by the official of the appellant herein i.e. the Station Master, Yeshwanthpura to GRP/Yeshwanathpura (Exh.A-2) that he was informed by the said Loco Pilot that one male person has fallen down from train No.16535, two legs cut and injured is alive and 108 ambulance informed. This aspect is further established by Exh.A-3, which is the acknowledgement of N.C.No.139/2014 dated 19.08.2014 and Exh.A-4-Police intimation given by the Insurance Medical Officer, Department of Casualty, ESIC Model Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru on 19.08.2014. 10. The injured applicant's father Sri Govindaraju has also given statement to the Police on 01.10.2014 which is marked as Exh.A-8. The injured applicant's father has explained with regard to the purchase of railway ticket and how he procured the same during his cross-examination before the Tribunal and he has also stated that he does not know what happened after the incident as his son had lost his consciousness. The injured applicant's father has explained with regard to the purchase of railway ticket and how he procured the same during his cross-examination before the Tribunal and he has also stated that he does not know what happened after the incident as his son had lost his consciousness. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is no contrary evidence by the appellant herein to establish that the injured applicant was not a bona fide passenger and he received injuries not due to fall from train but while he was in the process of committing suicide. No material has been produced by the appellant herein apart from the sole statement of RW.1, Loco Pilot-Mr.S.Jagadeesan where he has stated that the injured applicant jumped before the train and got his two legs cut, which itself is contrary to each other. The Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that no prudent man would believe that if a person jumps before the train, he would be alive whereas he would be crushed under the wheels of the train and there would be little chance of survival, but in the instant case, it is contrary to the statement made by the appellant herein and no such things had happened. The Tribunal has taken the view that the injured applicant and his father probably would have lost the ticket while he was being shifted to the hospital. As stated earlier, no contrary evidence has been produced or elicited in the cross examination by the appellant herein to disprove the fact that the ticket was purchased by the injured applicant. 11. The injured applicant has produced Exh.A-1-copy of the Aadhar card which confirms the identity of the injured applicant and his residential address and he has filed Exh.A-6-Wound Certificate, in which, the Doctor has opined that the injured applicant has sustained the following injuries: "(1) Accidental below knee auto amputation of left leg. (2) Accidental auto amputation of right leg, exposing knee joint." The above mentioned injury Nos. 1 and 2 are grievous in nature. 12. Apart from this, the injured applicant has produced a photo before the Tribunal to show that both legs were amputated. As such, the injuries sustained by the injured applicant attract item No.3 Part-II of the Schedule appended to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 which prescribes a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for double amputation through legs. 12. Apart from this, the injured applicant has produced a photo before the Tribunal to show that both legs were amputated. As such, the injuries sustained by the injured applicant attract item No.3 Part-II of the Schedule appended to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 which prescribes a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for double amputation through legs. As such, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the applicant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till the date of the order of the Tribunal and thereafter, the interest @ 9% till the date of realisation. 13. The Tribunal has also ordered that out of the said amount, Rs.2,00,000/- + accrued interest shall be paid by the appellant herein to the bank account through ECS and remaining Rs.2,00,000/- shall be deposited in the scheduled bank nearby to his residence for a period of 10 years with instructions to the Bank to pay quarterly interest to the injured applicant. 14. After giving careful consideration to the facts of the case, material documents produced and the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the injured applicant is a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident and sustained injuries due to the fall from the train which comes within the purview of "untoward incident." Further, even if this Court were to assume the statement made by the appellant is true, which is not so in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the negligence is not a ground to deny the compensation. Therefore, on the basis of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has not made out any ground for interference with the order of the Tribunal dated 29.11.2016. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 15. Pending application does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.