Karnataka High Court
D Hanumantharayappa S/O Late D ... vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
MFA No. 358 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 358 OF 2011 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. D HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O LATE D NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RETIRED APSRTC EMPLOYEE
2. SMT. GYANAMMA
W/O D HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/A NO. 15/295
Digitally signed SEVA MANDIRA-VILLAGE
by KOTTIGENAHALLI-POST
DHANALAKSHMI PARAGI-MANDAL,
MURTHY
Location: High
HINDUPUR-TALUK
Court of ANANTAHAPUR-DISTRICT
Karnataka ANDHRA PRADESH
(DELETED V/O DATED:23.08.2022)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M A MALVI & M R HIREMATHAD.,ADVOCATES)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
R/BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
-2-
MFA No. 358 of 2011
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 30.6.2010 PASSED IN OA-II-U-NO.112/2008 ON
THE FILE OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
BENCH, DISMISSING THE CLAIM APPLICATION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants
under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987 (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgment dated
30.6.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore in O.A.II-U-No.112/2008, whereby the Tribunal
has dismissed the application filed by the applicants.
MFA No. 358 of 2011
2. Brief facts of the case of the applicants:
On 25.4.2008, the D.Venkatesh (deceased) was
traveling as a passenger from Hindupur Railway Station to
Bangalore via Gowribidanur by train No.434-Guntur
Yeshwanthpur passenger, holding ticket No.2681 and
stood near the door and when the train took sudden jerk
and jolt, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous
and succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the applicants
filed application before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
On service of summons, the respondent appeared through
counsel and filed written statement and denied the
averments made in the application. After hearing the
parties and considering the materials available on record,
the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that
the applicants have failed to prove that they are
dependents of deceased. Being aggrieved by the same,
the present appeal is filed by the applicants.
MFA No. 358 of 2011
3. The learned counsel for the applicants has
contended that applicant No.1, Hanumantharayudu is the
father of deceased, D.Venkatesh and he has produced
necessary documents to prove that he is the father of the
deceased and he is depending on the deceased for his
livelihood. But the Tribunal has failed to consider the same
and erred in dismissing the application.
He further contended that the applicant No.1 has
other documents to prove that he is the father of the
deceased. During the pendency of the application before
the Tribunal, the documents were not available. Therefore,
if this Court grants one more opportunity, the applicant
No.1 would produce the same before the Tribunal to
establish that he is the father of the deceased. Hence, he
sought for allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent-railways has contended that applicant No.1
has failed to prove that the D.Venkatesh was the son of
MFA No. 358 of 2011
applicant No.1. To make a false claim, there is
impersonation. Further, no documents is produced to
prove that applicant No.1 is the father of the deceased.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the
application. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the judgment of the Tribunal.
6. It is not in dispute that D.Venkatesh died due to
an untoward incident occurred on 25.4.2008 while he was
traveling as a passenger from Hindupur Railway Station to
Bangalore via Gowribidanur by train No.434-Guntur
Yeshwanthpur passenger, holding ticket No.2681, while he
was standing near the door and when the train took
sudden jerk and jolt, the deceased fell down and sustained
grievous and succumbed to the injuries.
There is no sufficient materials to prove that
applicant No.1 is the father of the deceased.
MFA No. 358 of 2011
Now, the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant
submitted that applicant No.1 has some documents to
prove that he is the father of the deceased. If this Court
grants an opportunity, he would produce the same
documents before the Tribunal.
Under the circumstances and in the interest of
justice, the matter deserves to be remanded to the
Tribunal with liberty to the parties to produce additional
documents and adduce additional evidence.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment passed by the Tribunal is set-aside. The matter
is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
The parties are at liberty to adduce additional
evidence and produce additional documents to establish
their case.
The Tribunal after giving opportunities to the parties
shall decide the matter in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible.
MFA No. 358 of 2011
It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the
merits of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
