Samson S/O Devidas Dhandinavar vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 3522 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 02 N D DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                           BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

            MFA NO.7270 OF 2012 (RCT)

BETWEEN:

Samson
S/o Devid as Dhandinavar,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o Yedhalli Village,
Hattijuni Post, Yadgir Taluk,
Gulb arg a District.
                                                 ...Appellant
(By Sri M.R.Hiremathad , Advocate)

AND:

Union of India,
Represented by
The General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Secund erab ad .
                                               ...Respondent
(By Sri Y.T.Abhinay, Advocate)

      This MFA is filed und er Section 23(1) of Railway
Claims   Tribunal   Act,   ag ainst   the   judgment    dated
22.02.2012 passed in OA II U 42/2009 on the file of
the    Railway   Claims    Tribunal,    Beng aluru     Bench,
dismissing the ap plication as time barred.

      This MFA coming on for hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
                                 :: 2 ::


                          JUDGMENT

The appellant laid a claim petition before the

Railway Claims Tribunal on 6.5.2009 in connection

with an accident said to have taken place on

25.5.2004. By the time claim petition was made,

there was a delay of 3 years 4 months and

therefore the appellant also made an application

under section 17(2) of the Railway Claims

Tribunals Act. The Tribunal by its order dated

22.2.2012 dismissed the application and hence

this appeal.

2. I have heard Sri M.R.Hiremathad for the

appellant and Sri Y.T.Abhinay for the respondent.

According to the appellant, he sustained injuries

as a result of the accident said to have taken place

on 25.5.2004 which resulted in amputation of his

left hand. He is a teacher in a school. In the

application he stated that he did not know that

there was a forum for claiming compensation in :: 3 ::

connection with railway accidents. Soon after

coming to know about it he approached the

Tribunal. The Tribunal did not believe this reason.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri

M.R.Hiremathad submits that the Tribunal could

have taken a lenient view in condoning the delay

to decide the claim petition on merits.

4. Sri Y.T.Abhinay submits that usually the

respondent does not oppose the application

whenever there is delay in approaching the

Tribunal. But in the instant case, FIR was also not

registered and railway ticket was also not

produced. If an accident really takes place, FIR

will be registered. The very fact the FIR was not

registered in the case on hand shows that accident

did not take place at all. He also submits that

after three years, railways destroy the documents

and no document is available to verify whether the

FIR had been registered or not.

:: 4 ::

5. I have perused the impugned order. I do

not find any infirmity in it. Reason that the

appellant has given that he was unaware of the

establishment of Railway Claims Tribunal for

awarding compensation to the victims of the

accident cannot be accepted. He is a teacher by

profession. As submitted by Sri Y.T.Abhinay if

really accident had taken place, FIR would have

been registered. Non-registration of FIR is not

disputed and in this view even if delay is condoned

and the impugned order is set aside, no purpose

would be served. Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ckl/-