Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1456 (KAR)

Lakshmi W/o Late Raghavendra v. Union Of India

2025-11-27

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. The appeal is filed by appellants/claimants questioning the judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed in Claim Application No.OA (II U)/SBC/0052/2023 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, thereby, the application filed by the claimants is dismissed. 2. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was the resident of Kudali of Hunasagi Taluk and was a businessman. His grandmother had a paralysis attack and the deceased accompanied his grandmother to Karawar for her treatment. After completion of treatment, the deceased left from Karawar and went to Bengaluru for his contract work. Therefore, he informed his children over phone that he would be proceeding to Bengaluru. Thereafter, on 03.06.2022 he was travelling by train and during the course of journey, he fell down accidentally from the train and as a result of which, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. The application filed by the claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal on the reason that the deceased was not the bonafide passenger as the claimants have not produced the journey ticket. 3. Questioning the decision made in the claim petition, the claimants filed the appeal by raising various grounds and the learned counsel for the appellants in consonance with the grounds raised has submitted that the deceased was the bonafide passenger and after purchasing the journey ticket he was travelling, but due to jerk and jolt fell down accidentally from the train and died and in this process the ticket might have lost. Therefore, this fact is deposed in the affidavit evidence. Therefore, the claimants have discharged their initial burden, but it is the burden on the respondent-Union of India to discharge, but the respondent has not discharged their burden. Therefore, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. RINA DEVI , (2019) 3 SCC 572 , learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was the bonafide passenger. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and pay compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India submitted that though the dead body was found on the railway track, but there is no journey ticket recovered from the body of the deceased. Therefore, the deceased was not the bonafide passenger, which is rightly considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 5. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India submitted that though the dead body was found on the railway track, but there is no journey ticket recovered from the body of the deceased. Therefore, the deceased was not the bonafide passenger, which is rightly considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 5. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition only on the reason that the journey ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased. Therefore, the deceased was not the bonafide passenger. Hence, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. 6. Under these facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RINA DEVI at paragraph Nos.26, 27, 28 and 29 has laid down the law as under: “26. Conflict of decisions has been pointed out on the subject. As noticed from the statutory provision, compensation is payable for death or injury of a “passenger”. In Raj Kumari [Raj Kumari v. Union of India, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 : 1993 ACJ 846 ] referring to the scheme of the Railways Act, 1890, it was observed that since travelling without ticket was punishable, the burden was on the Railway Administration to prove that passenger was not a bona fide passenger. The Railway Administration has special knowledge whether ticket was issued or not. The 1989 Act also has similar provisions being Sections 55 and 137. This view has led to an inference that any person dead or injured found on the railway premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide passenger so as to maintain a claim for compensation. However, the Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh [Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 : 2015 ACJ 171 ] held that initial onus to prove death or injury to a bona fide passenger is always on the claimant. However, such onus can shift on the Railways if an affidavit of relevant facts is filed by the claimant. A negative onus cannot be placed on the Railways. Onus to prove that the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger can be discharged even in absence of a ticket if relevant facts are shown that ticket was purchased but it was lost. A negative onus cannot be placed on the Railways. Onus to prove that the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger can be discharged even in absence of a ticket if relevant facts are shown that ticket was purchased but it was lost. The Delhi High Court observed as follows : (Gurcharan Singh case [Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 : 2015 ACJ 171 ] , SCC OnLine Del para 4) “4. … (ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant claimants is totally misconceived. The initial onus in my opinion always lies with the appellant claimants to show that there is a death due to untoward incident of a bona fide passenger. Of course, by filing of the affidavit and depending on the facts of a particular case that initial onus can be a light onus which can shift on the Railways, however, it is not the law that even the initial onus of proof which has to be discharged is always on the Railways and not on the claimants. I cannot agree to this proposition of law that the Railways have the onus to prove that a deceased was not a bona fide passenger because no such negative onus is placed upon the Railways either under the Railways Act or the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the Rules or as per any judgment of the Supreme Court. No doubt, in the facts of the particular case, onus can be easily discharged such as in a case where the deceased may have died at a place where he could not have otherwise been unless he was travelling in the train and in such circumstances depending on the facts of a particular case it may not be necessary to prove the factum of the deceased having a ticket because ticket as per the type of incident of death can easily be lost in an accident. I at this stage take note of a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Pyar Singh v. Union of India [Pyar Singh v. Union of India, (2007) 8 AD Del 262] which holds that it is the claimant upon whom the initial onus lies to prove his case. I at this stage take note of a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Pyar Singh v. Union of India [Pyar Singh v. Union of India, (2007) 8 AD Del 262] which holds that it is the claimant upon whom the initial onus lies to prove his case. I agree to this view and I am bound by this judgment and not by the ratio of the case of Leelamma [Union of India v. Leelamma, 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 903 : (2009) 1 KLT 914 ] .” 27. In Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi [Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828 : 2013 ACJ 1061 ] the same view was taken by a Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh after referring to the provisions of the Evidence Act as follows : (SCC OnLine AP para 24) “24. So, from Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the applicants, having come to the court asserting some facts, must prove that the death of the deceased had taken place in an untoward incident and that the death occurred while the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers as a passenger with valid ticket. Therefore, having asserted that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was having a valid ticket at the time of his death, the initial burden lies on the applicants to establish the same. The initial burden of the applicants never shifts unless the respondent admits the assertions made by the applicants. Such evidence is lacking in this case. Except the oral assertion of AW 1, no evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the applicants. The court may presume that the evidence which could be, and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. The best evidence rule, which governs the production of evidence in courts, requires that the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible should always be produced. Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 enables the court to draw an adverse presumption against a person who can make available to the court, but obstructs the availability of such an evidence. Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 enables the court to draw an adverse presumption against a person who can make available to the court, but obstructs the availability of such an evidence. The Claims Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants and there are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.” 28. In Kamrunnissa [Kamrunnissa v. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 391 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 304] , from the circumstances appearing in that case it was held that there was no evidence that the deceased had purchased the ticket. In the given fact situation of that case, this Court inferred that it was not a case of “untoward incident” but a case of run over. It was observed: “7. The aforestated report also reveals, that the body of the deceased had been cut into two pieces, and was lying next to the railway track. The report further indicates, that the intestine of the deceased had come out of the body. The above factual position reveals that the body was cut into two pieces from the stomach. This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the inquest report, that the intestines of the deceased had come out of the body. It is not possible for us to accept that such an accident could have taken place while boarding a train. 8. In addition to the factual position emerging out of a perusal of Paras VII and VIII extracted hereinabove, the report also reveals that besides a pocket diary having been found from the person of the deceased a few telephone numbers were also found, but importantly, the deceased was not in possession of any other article. This further clears the position adopted by the railway authorities, namely, that the deceased Gafoor Sab, was not in possession of a ticket, for boarding the train at the Devangere Railway Station.” 29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” 7. Here in the present case, claimant No.1 has filed the affidavit evidence deposing the fact that her husband deceased was travelling in the train by mentioning in detail the point of journey and on which circumstances, the deceased was travelling after purchasing the journey ticket and died in the accident. When such being the affidavit filed by the claimants who have discharged their initial burden, but there is no discharge of burden on the part of the respondent-Union of India by placing materials. 8. There may be circumstances that after purchasing the journey ticket the deceased might have kept the journey ticket in his bag which is inside the train and the deceased due to accident fell down from the train, therefore, there may be chances of not recovering journey ticket from the body of the deceased. Therefore, only on the reason of non-recovering of journey ticket from the body of the deceased is not a ground to reject the claim petition. 9. When admittedly by filing affidavit of evidence the claimants have discharged their initial burden. Therefore, by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above stated, it is proved that the deceased is the bonafide passenger. Hence, negating the claim of the claimants is not correct and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside by awarding compensation. 10. This Court, in innumerable appeals filed before this Court has experienced that the Tribunal’s approach while deciding the claim applications is not found to be having human approach. Accordingly, order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside by awarding compensation. 10. This Court, in innumerable appeals filed before this Court has experienced that the Tribunal’s approach while deciding the claim applications is not found to be having human approach. It is the experience of this Court that the Railway Claims Tribunal on very trivial reasons is going to dismiss the claim application, as the said reasons are not sustainable at all. In these types of cases, the claim applications are to be tried as per the principles of assessing the evidence on the theory of preponderance of probabilities, but the Railway Claims Tribunals are adopting while deciding the cases, as if it is a session case and considering the evidence beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the Railway Claims Tribunal shall have to assess and appreciate evidence on the theory of preponderance of probabilities, but not adopting the theory of beyond reasonable doubts, as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. 11. Hence, the deceased is proved to be a bona fide passenger. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the appellants/applicants are liable to compensation. Therefore, as per the schedule issued by the Ministry of Railways Doubles Compensation Rate Payable to Railway Victims w.e.f. 01.01.2017, the appellants/applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of accident till realization. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed in Claim Application No.OA (II U)/SBC/0052/2023 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. iii. The appellants/applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. iv. Claimant No.1 being the wife of the deceased is entitled to 40% and claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4 being the children of the deceased are entitled to 20% of compensation each respectively. v. Release the entire amount in favour of the claimants with an apportionment as above mentioned on proper identification. vi. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal. vii. No order as to costs. viii. Draw award accordingly.