Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Mrs. Sulochanamma Vs. Union of India
Decided On : Jul-06-2018
Court : Karnataka
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs. Sulochanamma Vs. Union of India Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 16', (int) 1 => 'Section 123(c)(2', (int) 2 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 174', (int) 4 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 123(c)(ii', (int) 6 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 2(29', (int) 8 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 9 => 'Section 124-A of the Railways Act', (int) 10 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 124-A of the Railways Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'RCT', (int) 1 => 'KONGARAHALLI', (int) 2 => 'BANGARPET', (int) 3 => 'UNION OF INDIA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS', (int) 4 => 'MFA', (int) 5 => 'RAILWAY CLAIMS JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2012', (int) 6 => 'BANGALORE BENCH', (int) 7 => 'BANGALORE', (int) 8 => 'MFA', (int) 9 => 'Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 10 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 11 => 'Tribunal', (int) 12 => 'Bangalore - Salem', (int) 13 => 'The Tribunal on the basis of', (int) 14 => 'A11', (int) 15 => 'The Tribunal on the basis of averments', (int) 16 => 'Tribunal', (int) 17 => 'Nos.1', (int) 18 => 'Inspector of Police', (int) 19 => 'Km.197/600-900', (int) 20 => 'Karmelaram', (int) 21 => 'CRML', (int) 22 => 'Sub-Inspector of Police', (int) 23 => 'R.P.C', (int) 24 => 'UDR', (int) 25 => 'CRML', (int) 26 => 'Bangalore Marikuppam', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'the Railway Department', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'the Railway Department', (int) 31 => 'Railway Authorities', (int) 32 => 'Railway', (int) 33 => 'Court', (int) 34 => 'Railway', (int) 35 => 'Bangalore - Salem', (int) 36 => 'Tribunal', (int) 37 => 'Thomas v. Union of India', (int) 38 => 'Court', (int) 39 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 40 => 'Union of India', (int) 41 => 'RCT', (int) 42 => 'Division Bench', (int) 43 => 'the High Court', (int) 44 => 'Vanchinad Express', (int) 45 => 'Chengannoor Railway Station', (int) 46 => 'Venad Express', (int) 47 => 'Venad', (int) 48 => 'the High Court', (int) 49 => 'Railway Accidents', (int) 50 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 51 => 'Tribunal', (int) 52 => 'Tribunal', (int) 53 => 'Court', (int) 54 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 55 => 'Court', (int) 56 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 57 => 'Union of India', (int) 58 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 59 => 'the High Court', (int) 60 => 'Smt', (int) 61 => 'the Station Master', (int) 62 => 'Byappanahalli Railway Police Station', (int) 63 => 'Court', (int) 64 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'SULOCHANAMMA', (int) 1 => 'K T BUPALAREDDI S', (int) 2 => 'Bangalore Bench', (int) 3 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 4 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 5 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 6 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 7 => 'No.66382475', (int) 8 => 'Bangalore', (int) 9 => 'Karmelaram Railway Station', (int) 10 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 11 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 12 => 'Thippreddy', (int) 13 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 14 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 15 => 'Exs', (int) 16 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 17 => 'Bangalore', (int) 18 => 'Bangalore', (int) 19 => 'Bangalore', (int) 20 => 'Bangalore', (int) 21 => 'Marikuppam', (int) 22 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 23 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 24 => 'Baiyyappanahalli Railway Police Station', (int) 25 => 'Bangalore', (int) 26 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 27 => 'Karmelaram', (int) 28 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 29 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 30 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 31 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 32 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 33 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 34 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 35 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 36 => 'Bench', (int) 37 => 'Thomas', (int) 38 => 'Vanchinad Express', (int) 39 => 'Trichur', (int) 40 => 'Vinodamma’s', (int) 41 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 42 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 43 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 44 => 'Bench', (int) 45 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 46 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 47 => 'Prabhakaran Vijaya', (int) 48 => 'Kumar', (int) 49 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 50 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 51 => 'Thomas', (int) 52 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 53 => 'Thomas', (int) 54 => 'Vinodamma’s', (int) 55 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 56 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 57 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 58 => 'Bangalore Bench' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.71', (int) 1 => 'Bengaluru', (int) 2 => 'Bangalore', (int) 3 => 'Bangalore', (int) 4 => 'Bengaluru', (int) 5 => 'Salem', (int) 6 => 'Kerala', (int) 7 => 'Ernakulam', (int) 8 => 'South Western Railways', (int) 9 => 'Kerala', (int) 10 => 'Trichur', (int) 11 => 'Kerala', (int) 12 => 'Salem' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'OA II', (int) 1 => 'OA II', (int) 2 => 'O.A. II' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1987', (int) 1 => '1987', (int) 2 => '1989', (int) 3 => '28.05.2011', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '1978', (int) 6 => '1989 8', (int) 7 => '1989', (int) 8 => '2008', (int) 9 => '2002', (int) 10 => '17.01.2008', (int) 11 => '2012', (int) 12 => '21.05.1998', (int) 13 => '1989', (int) 14 => '1989', (int) 15 => '2008', (int) 16 => '1989' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '28.05.2011', (int) 2 => '28.05.2011', (int) 3 => '3.2', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '28.05.2011', (int) 6 => '3.3', (int) 7 => '1', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => '3.5', (int) 10 => 'No.2', (int) 11 => 'No.2', (int) 12 => '3', (int) 13 => '28.05.2011', (int) 14 => '28.05.2011', (int) 15 => '28.05.2011', (int) 16 => '28.05.2011', (int) 17 => '8 - 6', (int) 18 => 'at least one', (int) 19 => '9', (int) 20 => 'two', (int) 21 => '15.03.2010).-', (int) 22 => '11 - 10', (int) 23 => '12 - 10.1', (int) 24 => '1990.11', (int) 25 => '11.1', (int) 26 => 'two', (int) 27 => '15' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'second', (int) 2 => 'third', (int) 3 => 'second', (int) 4 => 'second' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%', (int) 1 => '18%' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Thippareddy' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '9:15 a.m.', (int) 1 => '7:39 a.m.' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Chengannoor Railway Station', (int) 1 => 'Chikkajajur Railway Station' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Chikkajajur' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1194343', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'MFA 426/2013', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Sulochanamma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Mrs. Sulochanamma Vs. Union of India', 'casenote' => null, 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2018-07-06', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'S.N.SATYANARAYANA', 'judgement' => '<p>- 1 - ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE6H DAY OF JULY2018BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.426/2013 (RCT) BETWEEN1 Mrs. SULOCHANAMMA W/O LATE THIPPAREDDY AGED ABOUT56YEARS2 Mr. K T BUPALAREDDI S/O LATE THIPPAREDDY AGED ABOUT26YEARS3 Mrs. MANJULA W/O THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT26YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF No.71, KONGARAHALLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI TANVEER PASHA A.S, ADVOCATE) AND UNION OF INDIA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, HUBLI REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (BY SRI SATISH KUMAR.N, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT - 2 - TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION231) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS </p>JUDGMENT<p> DATED:30.11.2012 PASSED IN OA II U1142011 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION UNDER SECTION16OF THE RAILWAYS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987. THE THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: </p><p>JUDGMENT</p><p> Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.</p><p>2. The unsuccessful applicants in OA II U1142011 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru, have come up in this appeal impugning the judgment dated 30.11.2012 in rejecting the claim application filed by them.</p><p>3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:</p><p>3. 1 It is the case of applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) that the first applicant is the wife, second applicant is the son and third applicant is the married daughter of Thippareddy, who is - 3 - said to have died in an untoward incident that took place on 28.05.2011 while he was traveling as a passenger in Bangalore – Salem passenger train. According to the applicants, on 28.05.2011, the said Thippareddy intended to travel to Bangarpet from Baiyappanahalli by Bangalore- Marikuppam passenger train and he purchased second class ticket bearing No.66382475 for the said purpose. However, due to inadvertence, he boarded a wrong train i.e., Bangalore – Salem passenger train and when the said train was passing between Karmelaram Railway Station and Baiyappanahalli ‘A; Panel Railway Station, due to heavy rush inside the train, he lost balance and fell on the ground, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Hence, they filed the said application under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the respondent towards death of Thippareddy. 3.2 The respondent represented by the Presenting Officer of the Tribunal, filed reply statement inter alia stating that deceased Thippareddy was not a bona fide passenger - 4 - traveling in Bangalore - Salem passenger train on 28.05.2011 and the applicants had failed to produce any material to indicate that due to heavy rush of passengers in the said train, Thippreddy fell down from the train resulting in his death. The claim made by the applicants did not come within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, as death of Thippareddy was not due to an untoward incident as alleged by the applicants, but it was on account of his self-inflicted injury. The respondent further contended that the journey ticket produced by the applicants did not bear the train number and applicants were not entitled to compensation. Accordingly, it sought for dismissal of the claim application. 3.3 The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: “1. Whether was there any untoward incident?.” 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?.</p><p>3. Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased?.</p><p>4. Whether the applicants are entitled for the relief and the interest as prayed in the claim application?.” - 5 - 3.4 In support of the claim, the second applicant, who is the son of deceased Thippareddy, got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.A1 to A11. The respondent did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence in support of its defence. 3.5 The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, took up issue No.2 as preliminary issue for consideration. The Tribunal on the basis of averments made in the claim application that Thippareddy had wrongly boarded Bangalore – Salem passenger train instead of Bangalore – Marikuppam train in respect of which he had purchased ticket, has opined that deceased had no authority to travel in Bangalore – Salem passenger train. It has pointed to the inconsistency in the evidence of applicant No.2 – AW.1 as he had stated in his examination-in-chief that by mistake, his father had boarded a wrong train i.e., Bangalore – Salem passenger train, whereas it was elicited in his cross-examination that his father had boarded the train, which ran between Bangalore city to Marikuppam on 28.05.2011. In the light of the said material on record, the - 6 - Tribunal while answering issue No.2 against the applicants, held that deceased Thippareddy was not a bona fide passenger. In view of the said finding on issue No.2, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to record its findings on the other issues i.e., issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 and accordingly, it rejected the claim application by its judgment dated 30.11.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, applicants are before this Court.</p><p>4. Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as the respondent. Perused the material on record including the records secured from the Tribunal.</p><p>5. The records would indicate that the Station Master, ‘A’ Panel South Western Railway, Baiyyappanahalli, by his letter dated 28.05.2011 (Ex.A4) had intimated to Sub- Inspector of Police, Baiyyappanahalli Railway Police Station, Bangalore, that as per the information given by public over telephone, a body of a male person was found lying by the side of track at Km.197/600-900 between Karmelaram (CRML) and ‘A’ Panel Baiyyappanahalli railway station. There is an - 7 - endorsement made by Sub-Inspector of Police on the said Ex.A4 to the effect that the said intimation was received on 28.05.2011 at 9:15 a.m. through R.P.C No.141 and case was registered as UDR No.42/2011 under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1978. There is nothing on record to show that there was any complaint given by the passengers traveling in Bengaluru - Salem passenger train on 28.05.2011 in informing the Police about any passenger having fallen down from the said train between Karmelaram (CRML) and ‘A’ Panel Baiyyappanahalli railway station. Even otherwise, when the ticket vide Ex.A8 is looked into, it is Rs.10/- ticket bearing No.D66382475 issued on 28.05.2011 at 7:39 a.m. for journey from Baiyyappanahalli to Bangarpet. The appellants are trying to demonstrate that though Thippareddy intended to travel from Baiyyappanahalli to Bangarpet in Bangalore Marikuppam passenger train, by mistake, he had boarded passenger train, which was proceeding towards Salem and on the way, due to heavy rush of passengers in the train, he fell down from the train.-. 8 - 6. Though this Court has sympathy for the applicants – appellants herein for having lost their dear one Thippareddy, it is difficult to accept that the Railway Department has got anything to do with his death and last of all, that he was a passenger in the said train and due to overcrowding of passengers, he had fallen down from the train, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. In fact, this Court, time and again, has observed that in most of the cases, the applicants in order to claim compensation from the Railway Department put forth the theory of passenger falling down from the train in which he was traveling for the reason that it was heavily crowded and he was not able to hang on to the train near the door and due to such fall, he suffered death. In such cases, what is required to be seen is if there is anything on record to demonstrate that at least one of the passengers traveling in the train along with deceased had given testimony to substantiate or support such theory put forth by the family members of deceased. In many of the cases, if the passengers traveling in a train see that one of their co- passengers had fallen from the train, they would be either - 9 - informing Railway Authorities or taking immediate step of pulling the chain of the train to stop it and ensure that the person, who had fallen down, gets immediate medical attention. Most of these claim petitions are from persons, who are trying to make use of an unfortunate incident into a situation, where they could get some compensation from the Railway department to the family. Though attempt of everyone involved in trying to get some compensation to the family in this method could be viewed sympathetically, the manipulation of records which they resort to, cannot be accepted by this Court and compensation cannot be distributed as if it is a largesse.</p><p>7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the possibility of the ticket being planted on the person of deceased Thippareddy cannot also be ruled out. It is clearly seen that an unfortunate incident of death of Thippareddy that had taken place near railway station is sought to be converted into a profitable proposition with a view to claim compensation from the Railway department by projecting the same as an accidental fall from a train so as to bring it under the ambit of - 10 - ‘untoward incident’ as contemplated under Section 123(c)(ii) of the Railways Act, 1989 8. A perusal of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, shows that the term ‘passenger’ means a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket. Admittedly, deceased Thippareddy had no valid ticket to travel in Bangalore - Salem passenger train. The finding of the Tribunal in rejecting the claim application filed by applicants – appellants herein appears to be just and proper.</p><p>9. In the instant case, learned counsel appearing for appellants would try to rely upon two judgments, one rendered by the Hon`ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam rendered in the matter of Thomas v. Union of India reported in 2008 ACJ1921(MFA No.1131 of 2002 decided on 17.01.2008) and another by coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the matter of Vinodamma and others v. Union of India, South Western Railways reported in 2012 ACJ306(MFA No.4832/2008 (RCT) decided on 15.03.2010).-. 11 - 10. Perusal of the judgment passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Thomas’s case (referred supra) discloses that the appellant therein filed an application seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum for the injuries sustained by him when he accidentally fell down from Vanchinad Express train at Chengannoor Railway Station on 21.05.1998. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated below knee and his right leg was amputated on the upper portion of femur. According to the appellant, he purchased a ticket from Chengannoor Railway Station to go to Trichur by Venad Express and he was under the impression that the train at platform No.1 was Venad express and hence, he along with his neighbour boarded the train in platform No.1, but later he found that he had boarded the wrong train i.e., Vanchinad Express and it was not the train which was going to Trichur and while trying to get down, he fell down from the moving train and as a result, his both legs were crushed under the wheels. The respondents therein contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant and they were not liable to pay compensation.-. 12 - 10.1 In the said case, Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala has observed that mere negligence on the part of bona fide passenger was not a ground to deny him compensation for untoward incident and since the injury was caused to the appellant as a result of the untoward incident and his claim did not come under exceptions (a) to (e) provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, it allowed the appeal in part by holding that the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest as per the provisions of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.</p><p>11. In Smt.Vinodamma’s case (referred supra), appellants, the mother and brothers of deceased Thippeswamy, had called in question the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing their application seeking compensation towards death of the said Thippeswamy in an untoward incident. The case of appellants was that Thippeswamy had purchased a valid ticket at Chikkajajur Railway Station and he boarded the train at Chikkajajur and - 13 - when he was trying to get down from the train, all of a sudden, the train moved due to which, he fell on the ground and later died on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The respondent therein – railway administration took up the contention before the Tribunal that though the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel as a passenger, the said ticket pertained to train No.582 and not train No.581 and therefore, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in respect of train No.581. The Tribunal accepting the said contention of the respondent, held that Thippeswamy could not be considered as a bona fide passenger in respect of the train in question and, as such, rejected the application. 11.1 In the facts and circumstances of the said case, a coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the fact that deceased Thippeswamy was holding a valid ticket (Ex.A6) was not in dispute as the Railway Claims Tribunal had also accepted the said fact by referring to the ticket number and the date on which it was issued and by virtue of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, the deceased Thippeswamy was, therefore, deemed to be a passenger. Further, learned single - 14 - Judge of this Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008 ACJ1895(SC), has held that the Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have given a liberal interpretation of ‘passenger’ in the light of its definition as contained in Section 2(29) and explanation to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and consequently, allowed the appeal holding that appellant No.1, the mother of deceased Thippeswamy, was entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest stated therein towards the death of her son (Thippeswamy) on account of untoward incident.</p><p>12. The said judgments are relied upon by the learned counsel for appellants to contend that in the aforesaid two cases, the High Court had accepted that the injury caused to the applicant - Thomas, and death of Thippeswamy, son of the applicant - Smt. Vinodamma, was due to respective untoward incident and the same could not be viewed suspiciously. When the said judgments are looked into, it is clearly seen that Thomas, the applicant and Thippeswamy, the son of the applicant – Smt. Vinodamma were held to be bona fide - 15 - passengers in the respective train and since they had taken ticket to proceed to certain place having boarded the wrong train, tried to get down from the train in the station itself when the train started to move. In both the cases, the said passengers had fallen down within the station when the train was about to move. Such fall from the train, which was on the move, was identified by the other passengers and railway staff and the injuries were immediately attended to by them.</p><p>13. In fact, both the cases i.e., Thomas’s case and Smt. Vinodamma’s case referred supra arise out of different facts, which are totally contrary to the facts as stated in the case on hand where deceased Thippareddy is said to have fallen down from the train in a place, which is far away from the station and in a train, which was moving towards Salem with a ticket in his pocket indicating as if he was traveling from Baiyappanahalli to Bangarpet. There is absolutely no evidence on record to demonstrate that his co-passengers had seen him fall from the train. It is only a stranger, who had seen dead body lying on the side of the railway track, had informed over phone to the Station Master of Baiyyappanahalli - 16 - Railway station about the said body being found. The Station Master informed the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Byappanahalli Railway Police Station. After investigation, Police have filed all necessary documents as applicants tried to seek compensation for the death of Thippareddy.</p><p>14. Therefore, in the fact situation, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit this appeal and no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. II U1142011. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. sma Sd/- JUDGE', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Union of India', 'sub' => null, 'link' => 'http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/233828/1/MFA426-13-06-07-2018.pdf', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1194343' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs. Sulochanamma Vs. Union of India Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 16', (int) 1 => 'Section 123(c)(2', (int) 2 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 174', (int) 4 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 123(c)(ii', (int) 6 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 2(29', (int) 8 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 9 => 'Section 124-A of the Railways Act', (int) 10 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 124-A of the Railways Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'RCT', (int) 1 => 'KONGARAHALLI', (int) 2 => 'BANGARPET', (int) 3 => 'UNION OF INDIA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS', (int) 4 => 'MFA', (int) 5 => 'RAILWAY CLAIMS JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2012', (int) 6 => 'BANGALORE BENCH', (int) 7 => 'BANGALORE', (int) 8 => 'MFA', (int) 9 => 'Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 10 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 11 => 'Tribunal', (int) 12 => 'Bangalore - Salem', (int) 13 => 'The Tribunal on the basis of', (int) 14 => 'A11', (int) 15 => 'The Tribunal on the basis of averments', (int) 16 => 'Tribunal', (int) 17 => 'Nos.1', (int) 18 => 'Inspector of Police', (int) 19 => 'Km.197/600-900', (int) 20 => 'Karmelaram', (int) 21 => 'CRML', (int) 22 => 'Sub-Inspector of Police', (int) 23 => 'R.P.C', (int) 24 => 'UDR', (int) 25 => 'CRML', (int) 26 => 'Bangalore Marikuppam', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'the Railway Department', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'the Railway Department', (int) 31 => 'Railway Authorities', (int) 32 => 'Railway', (int) 33 => 'Court', (int) 34 => 'Railway', (int) 35 => 'Bangalore - Salem', (int) 36 => 'Tribunal', (int) 37 => 'Thomas v. Union of India', (int) 38 => 'Court', (int) 39 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 40 => 'Union of India', (int) 41 => 'RCT', (int) 42 => 'Division Bench', (int) 43 => 'the High Court', (int) 44 => 'Vanchinad Express', (int) 45 => 'Chengannoor Railway Station', (int) 46 => 'Venad Express', (int) 47 => 'Venad', (int) 48 => 'the High Court', (int) 49 => 'Railway Accidents', (int) 50 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 51 => 'Tribunal', (int) 52 => 'Tribunal', (int) 53 => 'Court', (int) 54 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 55 => 'Court', (int) 56 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 57 => 'Union of India', (int) 58 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 59 => 'the High Court', (int) 60 => 'Smt', (int) 61 => 'the Station Master', (int) 62 => 'Byappanahalli Railway Police Station', (int) 63 => 'Court', (int) 64 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'SULOCHANAMMA', (int) 1 => 'K T BUPALAREDDI S', (int) 2 => 'Bangalore Bench', (int) 3 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 4 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 5 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 6 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 7 => 'No.66382475', (int) 8 => 'Bangalore', (int) 9 => 'Karmelaram Railway Station', (int) 10 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 11 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 12 => 'Thippreddy', (int) 13 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 14 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 15 => 'Exs', (int) 16 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 17 => 'Bangalore', (int) 18 => 'Bangalore', (int) 19 => 'Bangalore', (int) 20 => 'Bangalore', (int) 21 => 'Marikuppam', (int) 22 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 23 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 24 => 'Baiyyappanahalli Railway Police Station', (int) 25 => 'Bangalore', (int) 26 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 27 => 'Karmelaram', (int) 28 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 29 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 30 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 31 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 32 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 33 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 34 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 35 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 36 => 'Bench', (int) 37 => 'Thomas', (int) 38 => 'Vanchinad Express', (int) 39 => 'Trichur', (int) 40 => 'Vinodamma’s', (int) 41 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 42 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 43 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 44 => 'Bench', (int) 45 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 46 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 47 => 'Prabhakaran Vijaya', (int) 48 => 'Kumar', (int) 49 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 50 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 51 => 'Thomas', (int) 52 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 53 => 'Thomas', (int) 54 => 'Vinodamma’s', (int) 55 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 56 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 57 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 58 => 'Bangalore Bench' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.71', (int) 1 => 'Bengaluru', (int) 2 => 'Bangalore', (int) 3 => 'Bangalore', (int) 4 => 'Bengaluru', (int) 5 => 'Salem', (int) 6 => 'Kerala', (int) 7 => 'Ernakulam', (int) 8 => 'South Western Railways', (int) 9 => 'Kerala', (int) 10 => 'Trichur', (int) 11 => 'Kerala', (int) 12 => 'Salem' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'OA II', (int) 1 => 'OA II', (int) 2 => 'O.A. II' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1987', (int) 1 => '1987', (int) 2 => '1989', (int) 3 => '28.05.2011', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '1978', (int) 6 => '1989 8', (int) 7 => '1989', (int) 8 => '2008', (int) 9 => '2002', (int) 10 => '17.01.2008', (int) 11 => '2012', (int) 12 => '21.05.1998', (int) 13 => '1989', (int) 14 => '1989', (int) 15 => '2008', (int) 16 => '1989' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '28.05.2011', (int) 2 => '28.05.2011', (int) 3 => '3.2', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '28.05.2011', (int) 6 => '3.3', (int) 7 => '1', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => '3.5', (int) 10 => 'No.2', (int) 11 => 'No.2', (int) 12 => '3', (int) 13 => '28.05.2011', (int) 14 => '28.05.2011', (int) 15 => '28.05.2011', (int) 16 => '28.05.2011', (int) 17 => '8 - 6', (int) 18 => 'at least one', (int) 19 => '9', (int) 20 => 'two', (int) 21 => '15.03.2010).-', (int) 22 => '11 - 10', (int) 23 => '12 - 10.1', (int) 24 => '1990.11', (int) 25 => '11.1', (int) 26 => 'two', (int) 27 => '15' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'second', (int) 2 => 'third', (int) 3 => 'second', (int) 4 => 'second' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%', (int) 1 => '18%' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Thippareddy' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '9:15 a.m.', (int) 1 => '7:39 a.m.' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Chengannoor Railway Station', (int) 1 => 'Chikkajajur Railway Station' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Chikkajajur' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1194343', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'MFA 426/2013', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Sulochanamma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Mrs. Sulochanamma Vs. Union of India', 'casenote' => null, 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2018-07-06', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'S.N.SATYANARAYANA', 'judgement' => '<p>- 1 - ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE6H DAY OF JULY2018BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.426/2013 (RCT) BETWEEN1 Mrs. SULOCHANAMMA W/O LATE THIPPAREDDY AGED ABOUT56YEARS2 Mr. K T BUPALAREDDI S/O LATE THIPPAREDDY AGED ABOUT26YEARS3 Mrs. MANJULA W/O THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT26YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF No.71, KONGARAHALLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI TANVEER PASHA A.S, ADVOCATE) AND UNION OF INDIA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, HUBLI REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (BY SRI SATISH KUMAR.N, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT - 2 - TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION231) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS </p>JUDGMENT<p> DATED:30.11.2012 PASSED IN OA II U1142011 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION UNDER SECTION16OF THE RAILWAYS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987. THE THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: </p><p>JUDGMENT</p><p> Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.</p><p>2. The unsuccessful applicants in OA II U1142011 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru, have come up in this appeal impugning the judgment dated 30.11.2012 in rejecting the claim application filed by them.</p><p>3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:</p><p>3. 1 It is the case of applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) that the first applicant is the wife, second applicant is the son and third applicant is the married daughter of Thippareddy, who is - 3 - said to have died in an untoward incident that took place on 28.05.2011 while he was traveling as a passenger in Bangalore – Salem passenger train. According to the applicants, on 28.05.2011, the said Thippareddy intended to travel to Bangarpet from Baiyappanahalli by Bangalore- Marikuppam passenger train and he purchased second class ticket bearing No.66382475 for the said purpose. However, due to inadvertence, he boarded a wrong train i.e., Bangalore – Salem passenger train and when the said train was passing between Karmelaram Railway Station and Baiyappanahalli ‘A; Panel Railway Station, due to heavy rush inside the train, he lost balance and fell on the ground, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Hence, they filed the said application under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the respondent towards death of Thippareddy. 3.2 The respondent represented by the Presenting Officer of the Tribunal, filed reply statement inter alia stating that deceased Thippareddy was not a bona fide passenger - 4 - traveling in Bangalore - Salem passenger train on 28.05.2011 and the applicants had failed to produce any material to indicate that due to heavy rush of passengers in the said train, Thippreddy fell down from the train resulting in his death. The claim made by the applicants did not come within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, as death of Thippareddy was not due to an untoward incident as alleged by the applicants, but it was on account of his self-inflicted injury. The respondent further contended that the journey ticket produced by the applicants did not bear the train number and applicants were not entitled to compensation. Accordingly, it sought for dismissal of the claim application. 3.3 The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: “1. Whether was there any untoward incident?.” 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?.</p><p>3. Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased?.</p><p>4. Whether the applicants are entitled for the relief and the interest as prayed in the claim application?.” - 5 - 3.4 In support of the claim, the second applicant, who is the son of deceased Thippareddy, got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.A1 to A11. The respondent did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence in support of its defence. 3.5 The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, took up issue No.2 as preliminary issue for consideration. The Tribunal on the basis of averments made in the claim application that Thippareddy had wrongly boarded Bangalore – Salem passenger train instead of Bangalore – Marikuppam train in respect of which he had purchased ticket, has opined that deceased had no authority to travel in Bangalore – Salem passenger train. It has pointed to the inconsistency in the evidence of applicant No.2 – AW.1 as he had stated in his examination-in-chief that by mistake, his father had boarded a wrong train i.e., Bangalore – Salem passenger train, whereas it was elicited in his cross-examination that his father had boarded the train, which ran between Bangalore city to Marikuppam on 28.05.2011. In the light of the said material on record, the - 6 - Tribunal while answering issue No.2 against the applicants, held that deceased Thippareddy was not a bona fide passenger. In view of the said finding on issue No.2, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to record its findings on the other issues i.e., issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 and accordingly, it rejected the claim application by its judgment dated 30.11.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, applicants are before this Court.</p><p>4. Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as the respondent. Perused the material on record including the records secured from the Tribunal.</p><p>5. The records would indicate that the Station Master, ‘A’ Panel South Western Railway, Baiyyappanahalli, by his letter dated 28.05.2011 (Ex.A4) had intimated to Sub- Inspector of Police, Baiyyappanahalli Railway Police Station, Bangalore, that as per the information given by public over telephone, a body of a male person was found lying by the side of track at Km.197/600-900 between Karmelaram (CRML) and ‘A’ Panel Baiyyappanahalli railway station. There is an - 7 - endorsement made by Sub-Inspector of Police on the said Ex.A4 to the effect that the said intimation was received on 28.05.2011 at 9:15 a.m. through R.P.C No.141 and case was registered as UDR No.42/2011 under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1978. There is nothing on record to show that there was any complaint given by the passengers traveling in Bengaluru - Salem passenger train on 28.05.2011 in informing the Police about any passenger having fallen down from the said train between Karmelaram (CRML) and ‘A’ Panel Baiyyappanahalli railway station. Even otherwise, when the ticket vide Ex.A8 is looked into, it is Rs.10/- ticket bearing No.D66382475 issued on 28.05.2011 at 7:39 a.m. for journey from Baiyyappanahalli to Bangarpet. The appellants are trying to demonstrate that though Thippareddy intended to travel from Baiyyappanahalli to Bangarpet in Bangalore Marikuppam passenger train, by mistake, he had boarded passenger train, which was proceeding towards Salem and on the way, due to heavy rush of passengers in the train, he fell down from the train.-. 8 - 6. Though this Court has sympathy for the applicants – appellants herein for having lost their dear one Thippareddy, it is difficult to accept that the Railway Department has got anything to do with his death and last of all, that he was a passenger in the said train and due to overcrowding of passengers, he had fallen down from the train, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. In fact, this Court, time and again, has observed that in most of the cases, the applicants in order to claim compensation from the Railway Department put forth the theory of passenger falling down from the train in which he was traveling for the reason that it was heavily crowded and he was not able to hang on to the train near the door and due to such fall, he suffered death. In such cases, what is required to be seen is if there is anything on record to demonstrate that at least one of the passengers traveling in the train along with deceased had given testimony to substantiate or support such theory put forth by the family members of deceased. In many of the cases, if the passengers traveling in a train see that one of their co- passengers had fallen from the train, they would be either - 9 - informing Railway Authorities or taking immediate step of pulling the chain of the train to stop it and ensure that the person, who had fallen down, gets immediate medical attention. Most of these claim petitions are from persons, who are trying to make use of an unfortunate incident into a situation, where they could get some compensation from the Railway department to the family. Though attempt of everyone involved in trying to get some compensation to the family in this method could be viewed sympathetically, the manipulation of records which they resort to, cannot be accepted by this Court and compensation cannot be distributed as if it is a largesse.</p><p>7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the possibility of the ticket being planted on the person of deceased Thippareddy cannot also be ruled out. It is clearly seen that an unfortunate incident of death of Thippareddy that had taken place near railway station is sought to be converted into a profitable proposition with a view to claim compensation from the Railway department by projecting the same as an accidental fall from a train so as to bring it under the ambit of - 10 - ‘untoward incident’ as contemplated under Section 123(c)(ii) of the Railways Act, 1989 8. A perusal of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, shows that the term ‘passenger’ means a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket. Admittedly, deceased Thippareddy had no valid ticket to travel in Bangalore - Salem passenger train. The finding of the Tribunal in rejecting the claim application filed by applicants – appellants herein appears to be just and proper.</p><p>9. In the instant case, learned counsel appearing for appellants would try to rely upon two judgments, one rendered by the Hon`ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam rendered in the matter of Thomas v. Union of India reported in 2008 ACJ1921(MFA No.1131 of 2002 decided on 17.01.2008) and another by coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the matter of Vinodamma and others v. Union of India, South Western Railways reported in 2012 ACJ306(MFA No.4832/2008 (RCT) decided on 15.03.2010).-. 11 - 10. Perusal of the judgment passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Thomas’s case (referred supra) discloses that the appellant therein filed an application seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum for the injuries sustained by him when he accidentally fell down from Vanchinad Express train at Chengannoor Railway Station on 21.05.1998. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated below knee and his right leg was amputated on the upper portion of femur. According to the appellant, he purchased a ticket from Chengannoor Railway Station to go to Trichur by Venad Express and he was under the impression that the train at platform No.1 was Venad express and hence, he along with his neighbour boarded the train in platform No.1, but later he found that he had boarded the wrong train i.e., Vanchinad Express and it was not the train which was going to Trichur and while trying to get down, he fell down from the moving train and as a result, his both legs were crushed under the wheels. The respondents therein contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant and they were not liable to pay compensation.-. 12 - 10.1 In the said case, Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala has observed that mere negligence on the part of bona fide passenger was not a ground to deny him compensation for untoward incident and since the injury was caused to the appellant as a result of the untoward incident and his claim did not come under exceptions (a) to (e) provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, it allowed the appeal in part by holding that the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest as per the provisions of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.</p><p>11. In Smt.Vinodamma’s case (referred supra), appellants, the mother and brothers of deceased Thippeswamy, had called in question the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing their application seeking compensation towards death of the said Thippeswamy in an untoward incident. The case of appellants was that Thippeswamy had purchased a valid ticket at Chikkajajur Railway Station and he boarded the train at Chikkajajur and - 13 - when he was trying to get down from the train, all of a sudden, the train moved due to which, he fell on the ground and later died on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The respondent therein – railway administration took up the contention before the Tribunal that though the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel as a passenger, the said ticket pertained to train No.582 and not train No.581 and therefore, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in respect of train No.581. The Tribunal accepting the said contention of the respondent, held that Thippeswamy could not be considered as a bona fide passenger in respect of the train in question and, as such, rejected the application. 11.1 In the facts and circumstances of the said case, a coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the fact that deceased Thippeswamy was holding a valid ticket (Ex.A6) was not in dispute as the Railway Claims Tribunal had also accepted the said fact by referring to the ticket number and the date on which it was issued and by virtue of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, the deceased Thippeswamy was, therefore, deemed to be a passenger. Further, learned single - 14 - Judge of this Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008 ACJ1895(SC), has held that the Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have given a liberal interpretation of ‘passenger’ in the light of its definition as contained in Section 2(29) and explanation to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and consequently, allowed the appeal holding that appellant No.1, the mother of deceased Thippeswamy, was entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest stated therein towards the death of her son (Thippeswamy) on account of untoward incident.</p><p>12. The said judgments are relied upon by the learned counsel for appellants to contend that in the aforesaid two cases, the High Court had accepted that the injury caused to the applicant - Thomas, and death of Thippeswamy, son of the applicant - Smt. Vinodamma, was due to respective untoward incident and the same could not be viewed suspiciously. When the said judgments are looked into, it is clearly seen that Thomas, the applicant and Thippeswamy, the son of the applicant – Smt. Vinodamma were held to be bona fide - 15 - passengers in the respective train and since they had taken ticket to proceed to certain place having boarded the wrong train, tried to get down from the train in the station itself when the train started to move. In both the cases, the said passengers had fallen down within the station when the train was about to move. Such fall from the train, which was on the move, was identified by the other passengers and railway staff and the injuries were immediately attended to by them.</p><p>13. In fact, both the cases i.e., Thomas’s case and Smt. Vinodamma’s case referred supra arise out of different facts, which are totally contrary to the facts as stated in the case on hand where deceased Thippareddy is said to have fallen down from the train in a place, which is far away from the station and in a train, which was moving towards Salem with a ticket in his pocket indicating as if he was traveling from Baiyappanahalli to Bangarpet. There is absolutely no evidence on record to demonstrate that his co-passengers had seen him fall from the train. It is only a stranger, who had seen dead body lying on the side of the railway track, had informed over phone to the Station Master of Baiyyappanahalli - 16 - Railway station about the said body being found. The Station Master informed the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Byappanahalli Railway Police Station. After investigation, Police have filed all necessary documents as applicants tried to seek compensation for the death of Thippareddy.</p><p>14. Therefore, in the fact situation, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit this appeal and no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. II U1142011. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. sma Sd/- JUDGE', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Union of India', 'sub' => null, 'link' => 'http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/233828/1/MFA426-13-06-07-2018.pdf', 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1194343' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mrs. Sulochanamma Vs. Union of India Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 16', (int) 1 => 'Section 123(c)(2', (int) 2 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 174', (int) 4 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 123(c)(ii', (int) 6 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 2(29', (int) 8 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 9 => 'Section 124-A of the Railways Act', (int) 10 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 124-A of the Railways Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'RCT', (int) 1 => 'KONGARAHALLI', (int) 2 => 'BANGARPET', (int) 3 => 'UNION OF INDIA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS', (int) 4 => 'MFA', (int) 5 => 'RAILWAY CLAIMS JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2012', (int) 6 => 'BANGALORE BENCH', (int) 7 => 'BANGALORE', (int) 8 => 'MFA', (int) 9 => 'Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 10 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 11 => 'Tribunal', (int) 12 => 'Bangalore - Salem', (int) 13 => 'The Tribunal on the basis of', (int) 14 => 'A11', (int) 15 => 'The Tribunal on the basis of averments', (int) 16 => 'Tribunal', (int) 17 => 'Nos.1', (int) 18 => 'Inspector of Police', (int) 19 => 'Km.197/600-900', (int) 20 => 'Karmelaram', (int) 21 => 'CRML', (int) 22 => 'Sub-Inspector of Police', (int) 23 => 'R.P.C', (int) 24 => 'UDR', (int) 25 => 'CRML', (int) 26 => 'Bangalore Marikuppam', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'the Railway Department', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'the Railway Department', (int) 31 => 'Railway Authorities', (int) 32 => 'Railway', (int) 33 => 'Court', (int) 34 => 'Railway', (int) 35 => 'Bangalore - Salem', (int) 36 => 'Tribunal', (int) 37 => 'Thomas v. Union of India', (int) 38 => 'Court', (int) 39 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 40 => 'Union of India', (int) 41 => 'RCT', (int) 42 => 'Division Bench', (int) 43 => 'the High Court', (int) 44 => 'Vanchinad Express', (int) 45 => 'Chengannoor Railway Station', (int) 46 => 'Venad Express', (int) 47 => 'Venad', (int) 48 => 'the High Court', (int) 49 => 'Railway Accidents', (int) 50 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 51 => 'Tribunal', (int) 52 => 'Tribunal', (int) 53 => 'Court', (int) 54 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 55 => 'Court', (int) 56 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 57 => 'Union of India', (int) 58 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 59 => 'the High Court', (int) 60 => 'Smt', (int) 61 => 'the Station Master', (int) 62 => 'Byappanahalli Railway Police Station', (int) 63 => 'Court', (int) 64 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'SULOCHANAMMA', (int) 1 => 'K T BUPALAREDDI S', (int) 2 => 'Bangalore Bench', (int) 3 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 4 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 5 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 6 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 7 => 'No.66382475', (int) 8 => 'Bangalore', (int) 9 => 'Karmelaram Railway Station', (int) 10 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 11 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 12 => 'Thippreddy', (int) 13 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 14 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 15 => 'Exs', (int) 16 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 17 => 'Bangalore', (int) 18 => 'Bangalore', (int) 19 => 'Bangalore', (int) 20 => 'Bangalore', (int) 21 => 'Marikuppam', (int) 22 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 23 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 24 => 'Baiyyappanahalli Railway Police Station', (int) 25 => 'Bangalore', (int) 26 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 27 => 'Karmelaram', (int) 28 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 29 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 30 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 31 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 32 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 33 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 34 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 35 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 36 => 'Bench', (int) 37 => 'Thomas', (int) 38 => 'Vanchinad Express', (int) 39 => 'Trichur', (int) 40 => 'Vinodamma’s', (int) 41 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 42 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 43 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 44 => 'Bench', (int) 45 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 46 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 47 => 'Prabhakaran Vijaya', (int) 48 => 'Kumar', (int) 49 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 50 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 51 => 'Thomas', (int) 52 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 53 => 'Thomas', (int) 54 => 'Vinodamma’s', (int) 55 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 56 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 57 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 58 => 'Bangalore Bench' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.71', (int) 1 => 'Bengaluru', (int) 2 => 'Bangalore', (int) 3 => 'Bangalore', (int) 4 => 'Bengaluru', (int) 5 => 'Salem', (int) 6 => 'Kerala', (int) 7 => 'Ernakulam', (int) 8 => 'South Western Railways', (int) 9 => 'Kerala', (int) 10 => 'Trichur', (int) 11 => 'Kerala', (int) 12 => 'Salem' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'OA II', (int) 1 => 'OA II', (int) 2 => 'O.A. II' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1987', (int) 1 => '1987', (int) 2 => '1989', (int) 3 => '28.05.2011', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '1978', (int) 6 => '1989 8', (int) 7 => '1989', (int) 8 => '2008', (int) 9 => '2002', (int) 10 => '17.01.2008', (int) 11 => '2012', (int) 12 => '21.05.1998', (int) 13 => '1989', (int) 14 => '1989', (int) 15 => '2008', (int) 16 => '1989' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '28.05.2011', (int) 2 => '28.05.2011', (int) 3 => '3.2', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '28.05.2011', (int) 6 => '3.3', (int) 7 => '1', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => '3.5', (int) 10 => 'No.2', (int) 11 => 'No.2', (int) 12 => '3', (int) 13 => '28.05.2011', (int) 14 => '28.05.2011', (int) 15 => '28.05.2011', (int) 16 => '28.05.2011', (int) 17 => '8 - 6', (int) 18 => 'at least one', (int) 19 => '9', (int) 20 => 'two', (int) 21 => '15.03.2010).-', (int) 22 => '11 - 10', (int) 23 => '12 - 10.1', (int) 24 => '1990.11', (int) 25 => '11.1', (int) 26 => 'two', (int) 27 => '15' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'second', (int) 2 => 'third', (int) 3 => 'second', (int) 4 => 'second' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%', (int) 1 => '18%' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Thippareddy' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '9:15 a.m.', (int) 1 => '7:39 a.m.' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Chengannoor Railway Station', (int) 1 => 'Chikkajajur Railway Station' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Chikkajajur' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1194343', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'MFA 426/2013', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Sulochanamma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Mrs. Sulochanamma Vs. Union of India', 'casenote' => null, 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2018-07-06', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'S.N.SATYANARAYANA', 'judgement' => '<p>- 1 - ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE6H DAY OF JULY2018BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.426/2013 (RCT) BETWEEN1 Mrs. SULOCHANAMMA W/O LATE THIPPAREDDY AGED ABOUT56YEARS2 Mr. K T BUPALAREDDI S/O LATE THIPPAREDDY AGED ABOUT26YEARS3 Mrs. MANJULA W/O THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT26YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF No.71, KONGARAHALLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI TANVEER PASHA A.S, ADVOCATE) AND UNION OF INDIA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, HUBLI REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (BY SRI SATISH KUMAR.N, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT - 2 - TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION231) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS </p>JUDGMENT<p> DATED:30.11.2012 PASSED IN OA II U1142011 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION UNDER SECTION16OF THE RAILWAYS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987. THE THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: </p><p>JUDGMENT</p><p> Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.</p><p>2. The unsuccessful applicants in OA II U1142011 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru, have come up in this appeal impugning the judgment dated 30.11.2012 in rejecting the claim application filed by them.</p><p>3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:</p><p>3. 1 It is the case of applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) that the first applicant is the wife, second applicant is the son and third applicant is the married daughter of Thippareddy, who is - 3 - said to have died in an untoward incident that took place on 28.05.2011 while he was traveling as a passenger in Bangalore – Salem passenger train. According to the applicants, on 28.05.2011, the said Thippareddy intended to travel to Bangarpet from Baiyappanahalli by Bangalore- Marikuppam passenger train and he purchased second class ticket bearing No.66382475 for the said purpose. However, due to inadvertence, he boarded a wrong train i.e., Bangalore – Salem passenger train and when the said train was passing between Karmelaram Railway Station and Baiyappanahalli ‘A; Panel Railway Station, due to heavy rush inside the train, he lost balance and fell on the ground, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Hence, they filed the said application under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the respondent towards death of Thippareddy. 3.2 The respondent represented by the Presenting Officer of the Tribunal, filed reply statement inter alia stating that deceased Thippareddy was not a bona fide passenger - 4 - traveling in Bangalore - Salem passenger train on 28.05.2011 and the applicants had failed to produce any material to indicate that due to heavy rush of passengers in the said train, Thippreddy fell down from the train resulting in his death. The claim made by the applicants did not come within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, as death of Thippareddy was not due to an untoward incident as alleged by the applicants, but it was on account of his self-inflicted injury. The respondent further contended that the journey ticket produced by the applicants did not bear the train number and applicants were not entitled to compensation. Accordingly, it sought for dismissal of the claim application. 3.3 The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: “1. Whether was there any untoward incident?.” 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?.</p><p>3. Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased?.</p><p>4. Whether the applicants are entitled for the relief and the interest as prayed in the claim application?.” - 5 - 3.4 In support of the claim, the second applicant, who is the son of deceased Thippareddy, got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.A1 to A11. The respondent did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence in support of its defence. 3.5 The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, took up issue No.2 as preliminary issue for consideration. The Tribunal on the basis of averments made in the claim application that Thippareddy had wrongly boarded Bangalore – Salem passenger train instead of Bangalore – Marikuppam train in respect of which he had purchased ticket, has opined that deceased had no authority to travel in Bangalore – Salem passenger train. It has pointed to the inconsistency in the evidence of applicant No.2 – AW.1 as he had stated in his examination-in-chief that by mistake, his father had boarded a wrong train i.e., Bangalore – Salem passenger train, whereas it was elicited in his cross-examination that his father had boarded the train, which ran between Bangalore city to Marikuppam on 28.05.2011. In the light of the said material on record, the - 6 - Tribunal while answering issue No.2 against the applicants, held that deceased Thippareddy was not a bona fide passenger. In view of the said finding on issue No.2, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to record its findings on the other issues i.e., issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 and accordingly, it rejected the claim application by its judgment dated 30.11.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, applicants are before this Court.</p><p>4. Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as the respondent. Perused the material on record including the records secured from the Tribunal.</p><p>5. The records would indicate that the Station Master, ‘A’ Panel South Western Railway, Baiyyappanahalli, by his letter dated 28.05.2011 (Ex.A4) had intimated to Sub- Inspector of Police, Baiyyappanahalli Railway Police Station, Bangalore, that as per the information given by public over telephone, a body of a male person was found lying by the side of track at Km.197/600-900 between Karmelaram (CRML) and ‘A’ Panel Baiyyappanahalli railway station. There is an - 7 - endorsement made by Sub-Inspector of Police on the said Ex.A4 to the effect that the said intimation was received on 28.05.2011 at 9:15 a.m. through R.P.C No.141 and case was registered as UDR No.42/2011 under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1978. There is nothing on record to show that there was any complaint given by the passengers traveling in Bengaluru - Salem passenger train on 28.05.2011 in informing the Police about any passenger having fallen down from the said train between Karmelaram (CRML) and ‘A’ Panel Baiyyappanahalli railway station. Even otherwise, when the ticket vide Ex.A8 is looked into, it is Rs.10/- ticket bearing No.D66382475 issued on 28.05.2011 at 7:39 a.m. for journey from Baiyyappanahalli to Bangarpet. The appellants are trying to demonstrate that though Thippareddy intended to travel from Baiyyappanahalli to Bangarpet in Bangalore Marikuppam passenger train, by mistake, he had boarded passenger train, which was proceeding towards Salem and on the way, due to heavy rush of passengers in the train, he fell down from the train.-. 8 - 6. Though this Court has sympathy for the applicants – appellants herein for having lost their dear one Thippareddy, it is difficult to accept that the Railway Department has got anything to do with his death and last of all, that he was a passenger in the said train and due to overcrowding of passengers, he had fallen down from the train, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. In fact, this Court, time and again, has observed that in most of the cases, the applicants in order to claim compensation from the Railway Department put forth the theory of passenger falling down from the train in which he was traveling for the reason that it was heavily crowded and he was not able to hang on to the train near the door and due to such fall, he suffered death. In such cases, what is required to be seen is if there is anything on record to demonstrate that at least one of the passengers traveling in the train along with deceased had given testimony to substantiate or support such theory put forth by the family members of deceased. In many of the cases, if the passengers traveling in a train see that one of their co- passengers had fallen from the train, they would be either - 9 - informing Railway Authorities or taking immediate step of pulling the chain of the train to stop it and ensure that the person, who had fallen down, gets immediate medical attention. Most of these claim petitions are from persons, who are trying to make use of an unfortunate incident into a situation, where they could get some compensation from the Railway department to the family. Though attempt of everyone involved in trying to get some compensation to the family in this method could be viewed sympathetically, the manipulation of records which they resort to, cannot be accepted by this Court and compensation cannot be distributed as if it is a largesse.</p><p>7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the possibility of the ticket being planted on the person of deceased Thippareddy cannot also be ruled out. It is clearly seen that an unfortunate incident of death of Thippareddy that had taken place near railway station is sought to be converted into a profitable proposition with a view to claim compensation from the Railway department by projecting the same as an accidental fall from a train so as to bring it under the ambit of - 10 - ‘untoward incident’ as contemplated under Section 123(c)(ii) of the Railways Act, 1989 8. A perusal of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, shows that the term ‘passenger’ means a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket. Admittedly, deceased Thippareddy had no valid ticket to travel in Bangalore - Salem passenger train. The finding of the Tribunal in rejecting the claim application filed by applicants – appellants herein appears to be just and proper.</p><p>9. In the instant case, learned counsel appearing for appellants would try to rely upon two judgments, one rendered by the Hon`ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam rendered in the matter of Thomas v. Union of India reported in 2008 ACJ1921(MFA No.1131 of 2002 decided on 17.01.2008) and another by coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the matter of Vinodamma and others v. Union of India, South Western Railways reported in 2012 ACJ306(MFA No.4832/2008 (RCT) decided on 15.03.2010).-. 11 - 10. Perusal of the judgment passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Thomas’s case (referred supra) discloses that the appellant therein filed an application seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum for the injuries sustained by him when he accidentally fell down from Vanchinad Express train at Chengannoor Railway Station on 21.05.1998. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated below knee and his right leg was amputated on the upper portion of femur. According to the appellant, he purchased a ticket from Chengannoor Railway Station to go to Trichur by Venad Express and he was under the impression that the train at platform No.1 was Venad express and hence, he along with his neighbour boarded the train in platform No.1, but later he found that he had boarded the wrong train i.e., Vanchinad Express and it was not the train which was going to Trichur and while trying to get down, he fell down from the moving train and as a result, his both legs were crushed under the wheels. The respondents therein contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant and they were not liable to pay compensation.-. 12 - 10.1 In the said case, Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala has observed that mere negligence on the part of bona fide passenger was not a ground to deny him compensation for untoward incident and since the injury was caused to the appellant as a result of the untoward incident and his claim did not come under exceptions (a) to (e) provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, it allowed the appeal in part by holding that the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest as per the provisions of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.</p><p>11. In Smt.Vinodamma’s case (referred supra), appellants, the mother and brothers of deceased Thippeswamy, had called in question the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing their application seeking compensation towards death of the said Thippeswamy in an untoward incident. The case of appellants was that Thippeswamy had purchased a valid ticket at Chikkajajur Railway Station and he boarded the train at Chikkajajur and - 13 - when he was trying to get down from the train, all of a sudden, the train moved due to which, he fell on the ground and later died on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The respondent therein – railway administration took up the contention before the Tribunal that though the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel as a passenger, the said ticket pertained to train No.582 and not train No.581 and therefore, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in respect of train No.581. The Tribunal accepting the said contention of the respondent, held that Thippeswamy could not be considered as a bona fide passenger in respect of the train in question and, as such, rejected the application. 11.1 In the facts and circumstances of the said case, a coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the fact that deceased Thippeswamy was holding a valid ticket (Ex.A6) was not in dispute as the Railway Claims Tribunal had also accepted the said fact by referring to the ticket number and the date on which it was issued and by virtue of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, the deceased Thippeswamy was, therefore, deemed to be a passenger. Further, learned single - 14 - Judge of this Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008 ACJ1895(SC), has held that the Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have given a liberal interpretation of ‘passenger’ in the light of its definition as contained in Section 2(29) and explanation to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and consequently, allowed the appeal holding that appellant No.1, the mother of deceased Thippeswamy, was entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest stated therein towards the death of her son (Thippeswamy) on account of untoward incident.</p><p>12. The said judgments are relied upon by the learned counsel for appellants to contend that in the aforesaid two cases, the High Court had accepted that the injury caused to the applicant - Thomas, and death of Thippeswamy, son of the applicant - Smt. Vinodamma, was due to respective untoward incident and the same could not be viewed suspiciously. When the said judgments are looked into, it is clearly seen that Thomas, the applicant and Thippeswamy, the son of the applicant – Smt. Vinodamma were held to be bona fide - 15 - passengers in the respective train and since they had taken ticket to proceed to certain place having boarded the wrong train, tried to get down from the train in the station itself when the train started to move. In both the cases, the said passengers had fallen down within the station when the train was about to move. Such fall from the train, which was on the move, was identified by the other passengers and railway staff and the injuries were immediately attended to by them.</p><p>13. In fact, both the cases i.e., Thomas’s case and Smt. Vinodamma’s case referred supra arise out of different facts, which are totally contrary to the facts as stated in the case on hand where deceased Thippareddy is said to have fallen down from the train in a place, which is far away from the station and in a train, which was moving towards Salem with a ticket in his pocket indicating as if he was traveling from Baiyappanahalli to Bangarpet. There is absolutely no evidence on record to demonstrate that his co-passengers had seen him fall from the train. It is only a stranger, who had seen dead body lying on the side of the railway track, had informed over phone to the Station Master of Baiyyappanahalli - 16 - Railway station about the said body being found. The Station Master informed the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Byappanahalli Railway Police Station. After investigation, Police have filed all necessary documents as applicants tried to seek compensation for the death of Thippareddy.</p><p>14. Therefore, in the fact situation, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit this appeal and no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. II U1142011. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. sma Sd/- JUDGE', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Union of India', 'sub' => null, 'link' => 'http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/233828/1/MFA426-13-06-07-2018.pdf', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1194343' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mrs. Sulochanamma Vs. Union of India Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 16', (int) 1 => 'Section 123(c)(2', (int) 2 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 3 => 'Section 174', (int) 4 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 123(c)(ii', (int) 6 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 2(29', (int) 8 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 9 => 'Section 124-A of the Railways Act', (int) 10 => 'the Railways Act', (int) 11 => 'Section 124-A of the Railways Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'RCT', (int) 1 => 'KONGARAHALLI', (int) 2 => 'BANGARPET', (int) 3 => 'UNION OF INDIA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS', (int) 4 => 'MFA', (int) 5 => 'RAILWAY CLAIMS JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2012', (int) 6 => 'BANGALORE BENCH', (int) 7 => 'BANGALORE', (int) 8 => 'MFA', (int) 9 => 'Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 10 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 11 => 'Tribunal', (int) 12 => 'Bangalore - Salem', (int) 13 => 'The Tribunal on the basis of', (int) 14 => 'A11', (int) 15 => 'The Tribunal on the basis of averments', (int) 16 => 'Tribunal', (int) 17 => 'Nos.1', (int) 18 => 'Inspector of Police', (int) 19 => 'Km.197/600-900', (int) 20 => 'Karmelaram', (int) 21 => 'CRML', (int) 22 => 'Sub-Inspector of Police', (int) 23 => 'R.P.C', (int) 24 => 'UDR', (int) 25 => 'CRML', (int) 26 => 'Bangalore Marikuppam', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'the Railway Department', (int) 29 => 'Court', (int) 30 => 'the Railway Department', (int) 31 => 'Railway Authorities', (int) 32 => 'Railway', (int) 33 => 'Court', (int) 34 => 'Railway', (int) 35 => 'Bangalore - Salem', (int) 36 => 'Tribunal', (int) 37 => 'Thomas v. Union of India', (int) 38 => 'Court', (int) 39 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 40 => 'Union of India', (int) 41 => 'RCT', (int) 42 => 'Division Bench', (int) 43 => 'the High Court', (int) 44 => 'Vanchinad Express', (int) 45 => 'Chengannoor Railway Station', (int) 46 => 'Venad Express', (int) 47 => 'Venad', (int) 48 => 'the High Court', (int) 49 => 'Railway Accidents', (int) 50 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 51 => 'Tribunal', (int) 52 => 'Tribunal', (int) 53 => 'Court', (int) 54 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 55 => 'Court', (int) 56 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 57 => 'Union of India', (int) 58 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal', (int) 59 => 'the High Court', (int) 60 => 'Smt', (int) 61 => 'the Station Master', (int) 62 => 'Byappanahalli Railway Police Station', (int) 63 => 'Court', (int) 64 => 'the Railway Claims Tribunal' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'SULOCHANAMMA', (int) 1 => 'K T BUPALAREDDI S', (int) 2 => 'Bangalore Bench', (int) 3 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 4 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 5 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 6 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 7 => 'No.66382475', (int) 8 => 'Bangalore', (int) 9 => 'Karmelaram Railway Station', (int) 10 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 11 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 12 => 'Thippreddy', (int) 13 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 14 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 15 => 'Exs', (int) 16 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 17 => 'Bangalore', (int) 18 => 'Bangalore', (int) 19 => 'Bangalore', (int) 20 => 'Bangalore', (int) 21 => 'Marikuppam', (int) 22 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 23 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 24 => 'Baiyyappanahalli Railway Police Station', (int) 25 => 'Bangalore', (int) 26 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 27 => 'Karmelaram', (int) 28 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 29 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 30 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 31 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 32 => 'Baiyyappanahalli', (int) 33 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 34 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 35 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 36 => 'Bench', (int) 37 => 'Thomas', (int) 38 => 'Vanchinad Express', (int) 39 => 'Trichur', (int) 40 => 'Vinodamma’s', (int) 41 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 42 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 43 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 44 => 'Bench', (int) 45 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 46 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 47 => 'Prabhakaran Vijaya', (int) 48 => 'Kumar', (int) 49 => 'Thippeswamy', (int) 50 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 51 => 'Thomas', (int) 52 => 'Vinodamma', (int) 53 => 'Thomas', (int) 54 => 'Vinodamma’s', (int) 55 => 'Thippareddy', (int) 56 => 'Baiyappanahalli', (int) 57 => 'Bangarpet', (int) 58 => 'Bangalore Bench' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.71', (int) 1 => 'Bengaluru', (int) 2 => 'Bangalore', (int) 3 => 'Bangalore', (int) 4 => 'Bengaluru', (int) 5 => 'Salem', (int) 6 => 'Kerala', (int) 7 => 'Ernakulam', (int) 8 => 'South Western Railways', (int) 9 => 'Kerala', (int) 10 => 'Trichur', (int) 11 => 'Kerala', (int) 12 => 'Salem' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'OA II', (int) 1 => 'OA II', (int) 2 => 'O.A. II' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1987', (int) 1 => '1987', (int) 2 => '1989', (int) 3 => '28.05.2011', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '1978', (int) 6 => '1989 8', (int) 7 => '1989', (int) 8 => '2008', (int) 9 => '2002', (int) 10 => '17.01.2008', (int) 11 => '2012', (int) 12 => '21.05.1998', (int) 13 => '1989', (int) 14 => '1989', (int) 15 => '2008', (int) 16 => '1989' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '28.05.2011', (int) 2 => '28.05.2011', (int) 3 => '3.2', (int) 4 => '4', (int) 5 => '28.05.2011', (int) 6 => '3.3', (int) 7 => '1', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => '3.5', (int) 10 => 'No.2', (int) 11 => 'No.2', (int) 12 => '3', (int) 13 => '28.05.2011', (int) 14 => '28.05.2011', (int) 15 => '28.05.2011', (int) 16 => '28.05.2011', (int) 17 => '8 - 6', (int) 18 => 'at least one', (int) 19 => '9', (int) 20 => 'two', (int) 21 => '15.03.2010).-', (int) 22 => '11 - 10', (int) 23 => '12 - 10.1', (int) 24 => '1990.11', (int) 25 => '11.1', (int) 26 => 'two', (int) 27 => '15' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'second', (int) 2 => 'third', (int) 3 => 'second', (int) 4 => 'second' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%', (int) 1 => '18%' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Thippareddy' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '9:15 a.m.', (int) 1 => '7:39 a.m.' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Chengannoor Railway Station', (int) 1 => 'Chikkajajur Railway Station' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Chikkajajur' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'No.1' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1194343', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'MFA 426/2013', 'appellant' => 'Mrs. Sulochanamma', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Mrs. Sulochanamma Vs. Union of India', 'casenote' => null, 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2018-07-06', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'S.N.SATYANARAYANA', 'judgement' => '<p>- 1 - ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE6H DAY OF JULY2018BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.426/2013 (RCT) BETWEEN1 Mrs. SULOCHANAMMA W/O LATE THIPPAREDDY AGED ABOUT56YEARS2 Mr. K T BUPALAREDDI S/O LATE THIPPAREDDY AGED ABOUT26YEARS3 Mrs. MANJULA W/O THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT26YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF No.71, KONGARAHALLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI TANVEER PASHA A.S, ADVOCATE) AND UNION OF INDIA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, HUBLI REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (BY SRI SATISH KUMAR.N, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT - 2 - TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION231) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS </p>JUDGMENT<p> DATED:30.11.2012 PASSED IN OA II U1142011 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION UNDER SECTION16OF THE RAILWAYS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987. THE THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: </p><p>JUDGMENT</p><p> Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.</p><p>2. The unsuccessful applicants in OA II U1142011 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru, have come up in this appeal impugning the judgment dated 30.11.2012 in rejecting the claim application filed by them.</p><p>3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:</p><p>3. 1 It is the case of applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) that the first applicant is the wife, second applicant is the son and third applicant is the married daughter of Thippareddy, who is - 3 - said to have died in an untoward incident that took place on 28.05.2011 while he was traveling as a passenger in Bangalore – Salem passenger train. According to the applicants, on 28.05.2011, the said Thippareddy intended to travel to Bangarpet from Baiyappanahalli by Bangalore- Marikuppam passenger train and he purchased second class ticket bearing No.66382475 for the said purpose. However, due to inadvertence, he boarded a wrong train i.e., Bangalore – Salem passenger train and when the said train was passing between Karmelaram Railway Station and Baiyappanahalli ‘A; Panel Railway Station, due to heavy rush inside the train, he lost balance and fell on the ground, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Hence, they filed the said application under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the respondent towards death of Thippareddy. 3.2 The respondent represented by the Presenting Officer of the Tribunal, filed reply statement inter alia stating that deceased Thippareddy was not a bona fide passenger - 4 - traveling in Bangalore - Salem passenger train on 28.05.2011 and the applicants had failed to produce any material to indicate that due to heavy rush of passengers in the said train, Thippreddy fell down from the train resulting in his death. The claim made by the applicants did not come within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, as death of Thippareddy was not due to an untoward incident as alleged by the applicants, but it was on account of his self-inflicted injury. The respondent further contended that the journey ticket produced by the applicants did not bear the train number and applicants were not entitled to compensation. Accordingly, it sought for dismissal of the claim application. 3.3 The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: “1. Whether was there any untoward incident?.” 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?.</p><p>3. Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased?.</p><p>4. Whether the applicants are entitled for the relief and the interest as prayed in the claim application?.” - 5 - 3.4 In support of the claim, the second applicant, who is the son of deceased Thippareddy, got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.A1 to A11. The respondent did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence in support of its defence. 3.5 The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, took up issue No.2 as preliminary issue for consideration. The Tribunal on the basis of averments made in the claim application that Thippareddy had wrongly boarded Bangalore – Salem passenger train instead of Bangalore – Marikuppam train in respect of which he had purchased ticket, has opined that deceased had no authority to travel in Bangalore – Salem passenger train. It has pointed to the inconsistency in the evidence of applicant No.2 – AW.1 as he had stated in his examination-in-chief that by mistake, his father had boarded a wrong train i.e., Bangalore – Salem passenger train, whereas it was elicited in his cross-examination that his father had boarded the train, which ran between Bangalore city to Marikuppam on 28.05.2011. In the light of the said material on record, the - 6 - Tribunal while answering issue No.2 against the applicants, held that deceased Thippareddy was not a bona fide passenger. In view of the said finding on issue No.2, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to record its findings on the other issues i.e., issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 and accordingly, it rejected the claim application by its judgment dated 30.11.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, applicants are before this Court.</p><p>4. Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as the respondent. Perused the material on record including the records secured from the Tribunal.</p><p>5. The records would indicate that the Station Master, ‘A’ Panel South Western Railway, Baiyyappanahalli, by his letter dated 28.05.2011 (Ex.A4) had intimated to Sub- Inspector of Police, Baiyyappanahalli Railway Police Station, Bangalore, that as per the information given by public over telephone, a body of a male person was found lying by the side of track at Km.197/600-900 between Karmelaram (CRML) and ‘A’ Panel Baiyyappanahalli railway station. There is an - 7 - endorsement made by Sub-Inspector of Police on the said Ex.A4 to the effect that the said intimation was received on 28.05.2011 at 9:15 a.m. through R.P.C No.141 and case was registered as UDR No.42/2011 under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1978. There is nothing on record to show that there was any complaint given by the passengers traveling in Bengaluru - Salem passenger train on 28.05.2011 in informing the Police about any passenger having fallen down from the said train between Karmelaram (CRML) and ‘A’ Panel Baiyyappanahalli railway station. Even otherwise, when the ticket vide Ex.A8 is looked into, it is Rs.10/- ticket bearing No.D66382475 issued on 28.05.2011 at 7:39 a.m. for journey from Baiyyappanahalli to Bangarpet. The appellants are trying to demonstrate that though Thippareddy intended to travel from Baiyyappanahalli to Bangarpet in Bangalore Marikuppam passenger train, by mistake, he had boarded passenger train, which was proceeding towards Salem and on the way, due to heavy rush of passengers in the train, he fell down from the train.-. 8 - 6. Though this Court has sympathy for the applicants – appellants herein for having lost their dear one Thippareddy, it is difficult to accept that the Railway Department has got anything to do with his death and last of all, that he was a passenger in the said train and due to overcrowding of passengers, he had fallen down from the train, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. In fact, this Court, time and again, has observed that in most of the cases, the applicants in order to claim compensation from the Railway Department put forth the theory of passenger falling down from the train in which he was traveling for the reason that it was heavily crowded and he was not able to hang on to the train near the door and due to such fall, he suffered death. In such cases, what is required to be seen is if there is anything on record to demonstrate that at least one of the passengers traveling in the train along with deceased had given testimony to substantiate or support such theory put forth by the family members of deceased. In many of the cases, if the passengers traveling in a train see that one of their co- passengers had fallen from the train, they would be either - 9 - informing Railway Authorities or taking immediate step of pulling the chain of the train to stop it and ensure that the person, who had fallen down, gets immediate medical attention. Most of these claim petitions are from persons, who are trying to make use of an unfortunate incident into a situation, where they could get some compensation from the Railway department to the family. Though attempt of everyone involved in trying to get some compensation to the family in this method could be viewed sympathetically, the manipulation of records which they resort to, cannot be accepted by this Court and compensation cannot be distributed as if it is a largesse.</p><p>7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the possibility of the ticket being planted on the person of deceased Thippareddy cannot also be ruled out. It is clearly seen that an unfortunate incident of death of Thippareddy that had taken place near railway station is sought to be converted into a profitable proposition with a view to claim compensation from the Railway department by projecting the same as an accidental fall from a train so as to bring it under the ambit of - 10 - ‘untoward incident’ as contemplated under Section 123(c)(ii) of the Railways Act, 1989 8. A perusal of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, shows that the term ‘passenger’ means a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket. Admittedly, deceased Thippareddy had no valid ticket to travel in Bangalore - Salem passenger train. The finding of the Tribunal in rejecting the claim application filed by applicants – appellants herein appears to be just and proper.</p><p>9. In the instant case, learned counsel appearing for appellants would try to rely upon two judgments, one rendered by the Hon`ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam rendered in the matter of Thomas v. Union of India reported in 2008 ACJ1921(MFA No.1131 of 2002 decided on 17.01.2008) and another by coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the matter of Vinodamma and others v. Union of India, South Western Railways reported in 2012 ACJ306(MFA No.4832/2008 (RCT) decided on 15.03.2010).-. 11 - 10. Perusal of the judgment passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Thomas’s case (referred supra) discloses that the appellant therein filed an application seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum for the injuries sustained by him when he accidentally fell down from Vanchinad Express train at Chengannoor Railway Station on 21.05.1998. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated below knee and his right leg was amputated on the upper portion of femur. According to the appellant, he purchased a ticket from Chengannoor Railway Station to go to Trichur by Venad Express and he was under the impression that the train at platform No.1 was Venad express and hence, he along with his neighbour boarded the train in platform No.1, but later he found that he had boarded the wrong train i.e., Vanchinad Express and it was not the train which was going to Trichur and while trying to get down, he fell down from the moving train and as a result, his both legs were crushed under the wheels. The respondents therein contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant and they were not liable to pay compensation.-. 12 - 10.1 In the said case, Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala has observed that mere negligence on the part of bona fide passenger was not a ground to deny him compensation for untoward incident and since the injury was caused to the appellant as a result of the untoward incident and his claim did not come under exceptions (a) to (e) provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, it allowed the appeal in part by holding that the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest as per the provisions of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.</p><p>11. In Smt.Vinodamma’s case (referred supra), appellants, the mother and brothers of deceased Thippeswamy, had called in question the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing their application seeking compensation towards death of the said Thippeswamy in an untoward incident. The case of appellants was that Thippeswamy had purchased a valid ticket at Chikkajajur Railway Station and he boarded the train at Chikkajajur and - 13 - when he was trying to get down from the train, all of a sudden, the train moved due to which, he fell on the ground and later died on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The respondent therein – railway administration took up the contention before the Tribunal that though the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel as a passenger, the said ticket pertained to train No.582 and not train No.581 and therefore, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in respect of train No.581. The Tribunal accepting the said contention of the respondent, held that Thippeswamy could not be considered as a bona fide passenger in respect of the train in question and, as such, rejected the application. 11.1 In the facts and circumstances of the said case, a coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the fact that deceased Thippeswamy was holding a valid ticket (Ex.A6) was not in dispute as the Railway Claims Tribunal had also accepted the said fact by referring to the ticket number and the date on which it was issued and by virtue of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, the deceased Thippeswamy was, therefore, deemed to be a passenger. Further, learned single - 14 - Judge of this Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008 ACJ1895(SC), has held that the Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have given a liberal interpretation of ‘passenger’ in the light of its definition as contained in Section 2(29) and explanation to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and consequently, allowed the appeal holding that appellant No.1, the mother of deceased Thippeswamy, was entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest stated therein towards the death of her son (Thippeswamy) on account of untoward incident.</p><p>12. The said judgments are relied upon by the learned counsel for appellants to contend that in the aforesaid two cases, the High Court had accepted that the injury caused to the applicant - Thomas, and death of Thippeswamy, son of the applicant - Smt. Vinodamma, was due to respective untoward incident and the same could not be viewed suspiciously. When the said judgments are looked into, it is clearly seen that Thomas, the applicant and Thippeswamy, the son of the applicant – Smt. Vinodamma were held to be bona fide - 15 - passengers in the respective train and since they had taken ticket to proceed to certain place having boarded the wrong train, tried to get down from the train in the station itself when the train started to move. In both the cases, the said passengers had fallen down within the station when the train was about to move. Such fall from the train, which was on the move, was identified by the other passengers and railway staff and the injuries were immediately attended to by them.</p><p>13. In fact, both the cases i.e., Thomas’s case and Smt. Vinodamma’s case referred supra arise out of different facts, which are totally contrary to the facts as stated in the case on hand where deceased Thippareddy is said to have fallen down from the train in a place, which is far away from the station and in a train, which was moving towards Salem with a ticket in his pocket indicating as if he was traveling from Baiyappanahalli to Bangarpet. There is absolutely no evidence on record to demonstrate that his co-passengers had seen him fall from the train. It is only a stranger, who had seen dead body lying on the side of the railway track, had informed over phone to the Station Master of Baiyyappanahalli - 16 - Railway station about the said body being found. The Station Master informed the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Byappanahalli Railway Police Station. After investigation, Police have filed all necessary documents as applicants tried to seek compensation for the death of Thippareddy.</p><p>14. Therefore, in the fact situation, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit this appeal and no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. II U1142011. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. sma Sd/- JUDGE', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Union of India', 'sub' => null, 'link' => 'http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/233828/1/MFA426-13-06-07-2018.pdf', 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1194343' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 16, Section 123(c)(2, the Railways Act, Section 174, the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 123(c)(ii, the Railways Act, Section 2(29, the Railways Act, Section 124-A of the Railways Act, the Railways Act, Section 124-A of the Railways Act
ORG: RCT, KONGARAHALLI, BANGARPET, UNION OF INDIA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, MFA, RAILWAY CLAIMS JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2012, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, MFA, Railway Claims Tribunal, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Tribunal, Bangalore - Salem, The Tribunal on the basis of, A11, The Tribunal on the basis of averments, Tribunal, Nos.1, Inspector of Police, Km.197/600-900, Karmelaram, CRML, Sub-Inspector of Police, R.P.C, UDR, CRML, Bangalore Marikuppam, Court, the Railway Department, Court, the Railway Department, Railway Authorities, Railway, Court, Railway, Bangalore - Salem, Tribunal, Thomas v. Union of India, Court, Vinodamma, Union of India, RCT, Division Bench, the High Court, Vanchinad Express, Chengannoor Railway Station, Venad Express, Venad, the High Court, Railway Accidents, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Court, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Court, the Apex Court, Union of India, the Railway Claims Tribunal, the High Court, Smt, the Station Master, Byappanahalli Railway Police Station, Court, the Railway Claims Tribunal
PERSON: SULOCHANAMMA, K T BUPALAREDDI S, Bangalore Bench, Thippareddy, Thippareddy, Bangarpet, Baiyappanahalli, No.66382475, Bangalore, Karmelaram Railway Station, Baiyappanahalli, Thippareddy, Thippreddy, Thippareddy, Thippareddy, Exs, Thippareddy, Bangalore, Bangalore, Bangalore, Bangalore, Marikuppam, Thippareddy, Baiyyappanahalli, Baiyyappanahalli Railway Police Station, Bangalore, Baiyyappanahalli, Karmelaram, Baiyyappanahalli, Baiyyappanahalli, Bangarpet, Thippareddy, Baiyyappanahalli, Bangarpet, Thippareddy, Thippareddy, Bench, Thomas, Vanchinad Express, Trichur, Vinodamma’s, Thippeswamy, Thippeswamy, Thippeswamy, Bench, Thippeswamy, Thippeswamy, Prabhakaran Vijaya, Kumar, Thippeswamy, Vinodamma, Thomas, Vinodamma, Thomas, Vinodamma’s, Thippareddy, Baiyappanahalli, Bangarpet, Bangalore Bench
GPE: No.71, Bengaluru, Bangalore, Bangalore, Bengaluru, Salem, Kerala, Ernakulam, South Western Railways, Kerala, Trichur, Kerala, Salem
EVENT: OA II, OA II, O.A. II
DATE: 1987, 1987, 1989, 28.05.2011, 4, 1978, 1989 8, 1989, 2008, 2002, 17.01.2008, 2012, 21.05.1998, 1989, 1989, 2008, 1989
CARDINAL: 1, 28.05.2011, 28.05.2011, 3.2, 4, 28.05.2011, 3.3, 1, 2, 3.5, No.2, No.2, 3, 28.05.2011, 28.05.2011, 28.05.2011, 28.05.2011, 8 - 6, at least one, 9, two, 15.03.2010).-, 11 - 10, 12 - 10.1, 1990.11, 11.1, two, 15
ORDINAL: first, second, third, second, second
PERCENT: 12%, 18%
LOC: Thippareddy
TIME: 9:15 a.m., 7:39 a.m.
FAC: Chengannoor Railway Station, Chikkajajur Railway Station
WORK_OF_ART: Chikkajajur
PRODUCT: No.1