Karnataka High Court
Chakravarthy vs Union Of India on 1 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4482
MFA No. 2686 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2686 OF 2014 (RCT)
BETWEEN:
1. CHAKRAVARTHY
S/O PONNUSWAMY
(DIED ON 17.09.2016)
(A) SMT. INDRAMMA
D/O LATE CHKRAVARTHY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
Digitally signed (B) SMT. MANJULA
by SHARANYA T D/O LATE CHKRAVARTHY
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OCC: HOUSEWIFE
(C) MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE CHKRAVARTHY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2. SMT. PANCHAVARNA
W/O CHAKRAVARTHI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4482
MFA No. 2686 of 2014
ALL ARE R/O KUDLUGERE VILLAGE
SUBRAMANYA BEEDI, BEHIND KEB
BHADRAVATHI TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI N RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SIR M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ABHINAY Y T, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC 23(1) OF RAILWAY
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.2.2014 PASSED IN O.A II U 166/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH,
BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants. The counsel for the respondent is absent.
2. This appeal is filed questioning the dismissal of
claim petition filed by the claimants who claims that they
are the parents of deceased Vadivelu who met with the
NC: 2024:KHC:4482
railway accident on 19.09.2010 when he was proceeding
along with his brother-in-law and cousin brother to
proceed to Chennai landed at Bangalore city railway
station in the night from Bhadravathi and boarded
Bangalore-Chennai Mail as bonafide passengers which was
heavily crowded. Then the train was moving between
Bangalore and Tyakal and Vadivelu who was forced to
stand near the door, due to heavy rush and sudden jerk,
he lost his balance and fell down from the train and
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
3. The Tribunal having considered the material
available on record answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 as
affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Vadivelu
died in the untoward incident and deceased was a
bonafide passenger and hence, the respondent is liable to
pay the compensation. But while considering Issue No.3,
the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that in order to show
that the claimants are the dependants, the claimants have
produced the documents at Ex.A5 and A6 i.e., the copies
NC: 2024:KHC:4482
of the election ID cards of Chakravarthi and Pachavarna
and the said documents only say that they are entitled to
vote. Ex.A7 is the copy of ration card and that will only
show that the head of the family is permitted to purchase
ration for five family members. Ex.A8 is the copy of the
certificate issued by KSEEB which says that father of
Vadivelu is Chakravarthi and mother is Pancharana and
the same will not show that Vadivelu was unmarried at the
time of the death. Ex.A9 is the genealogical tree which
shows that Chakravarthi and Panchavarna had four
children and Vadivelu is no more. Considering these
documents, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that
claimants have not proved that they are the dependants of
the deceased as per Section 123 of the Railways Act and
dismissed the claim petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants would vehemently contend that inspite of
documents at Ex.A1 to A9 are produced to substantiate
their claim, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the
NC: 2024:KHC:4482
claimants are entitled for the compensation but they are
unable to prove that they are the dependants of the
deceased. The Tribunal even failed to consider Ex.A8 -
SSLC marks card which clearly discloses that Chakravarthi
and Panchavarna are the parents of deceased Vadivelu.
Apart from that the document which has been produced at
Ex.A1 is the report submitted by the concerned police and
Ex.A3 is the inquest wherein also the father's name is
mentioned as Chakravarthi in column Nos.1 and 2. The
body was also handed over to the parents. The counsel
also brought to notice of this Court that in the case diary
also it is specifically mentioned that the deceased
Vadivelu is the son of Chakravarthi. All these documents
clearly disclose that the claimants are the parents of the
deceased Vadivelu. But the Tribunal not considered the
said documents in a proper perspective and committed an
error in coming to the conclusion that those documents
are only to get ration and for voting purpose. The very
approach of the Tribunal is capricious and unreasonable.
Hence, it requires interference.
NC: 2024:KHC:4482
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and also on perusal of the material available on
record it discloses that the very approach of the Tribunal is
erroneous. When the documents placed before the
Tribunal is an authenticated documents and the same are
issued by the Government, the Tribunal should not come
to such a conclusion that the claimants are not the
dependants of the deceased Vadivelu. The Tribunal failed
to take note of the document of Ex.A1 wherein it is clear
that Vadivelu died in the railway accident; Ex.A3 is also
clear that the father name is mentioned as Chakravarthi
who is the first claimant and dead body was handed over
to the claimants only after conducting the post mortem.
The Tribunal fails to take note of the case diary at Ex.A3
wherein in column No.6, it is specifically mentioned that
he is unmarried and body of male person but the Tribunal
held that there is no document to show that he is
unmarried. The Tribunal held that Ex.A5 and A6 are the
election ID cards and the same will be for casting vote and
Ex.A7 is the copy of ration card which only show that they
NC: 2024:KHC:4482
are permitted to purchase ration. Thus, the interpretation
of the Tribunal is erroneous. The Tribunal failed to
consider the document at Ex.A8-SSLC marks card which
clearly shows that the Vadivelu is the son of Chakravarthi
and Panchavarna. Even though the Tribunal comes to the
conclusion that the accident is an untoward incident and
the respondent is liable to pay compensation, the
documentary evidences are not properly appreciated and
committed an error in holding that the claimants are not
the dependants of the deceased. The very reasoning given
by the Tribunal with regard to the dependency is
concerned, it appears that only with an intention to reject
the claim petition, such interpretation is made. In a claim
petition, the Court has to look into the documents in a
proper perspective, not with an intention to reject the
claim petition. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is
capricious, unreasonable and erroneous and it requires
interference.
NC: 2024:KHC:4482
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 07.02.2014 passed in
O.A.II U 166/2010 by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore is set aside. The claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of the accident.
The Tribunal is ordered to release the entire amount
in favour of the mother of the deceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
