Dismissed

Samson S/O Devidas Dhandinavar v. Union of India

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2022MFA/7270/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Commissioner filed an appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a claim petition as time-barred due to a delay of three years and four months. The Single Judge dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity, holding the appellant gave an unaccepted reason for delay, and emphasizing that the lack of an FIR suggests no accident occurred, rendering condonation of delay pointless.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed against the Railway Claims Tribunal's order dismissing the claim petition as time-barred was dismissed.

Samson S/O Devidas Dhandinavar Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

MFA NO.7270 OF 2012 (RCT)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Samson S/o Devidas Dhandinavar, Aged about 40 years, R/o Yedhalli Village, Hattijuni Post, Yadgir Taluk, Gulbarga District.

¶7

…Appellant

¶8

(By Sri M.R.Hiremathad, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Union of India, Represented by The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

¶11

…Respondent

¶12

(By Sri Y.T.Abhinay, Advocate)

¶13

This MFA is filed under Section 23(1) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, against the judgment dated 22.02.2012 passed in OA II U 42/2009 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, dismissing the application as time barred.

¶14

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

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

:: 3 ::

¶20

connection with railway accidents. Soon after coming to know about it he approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not believe this reason.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

:: 4 ::

¶24

I have perused the impugned order. I do

¶25

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.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

ckl/-

Samson S/O Devidas Dhandinavar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samson S/O Devidas Dhandinavar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. M. Venkataswamy Vs M.S. Palaksha

Santhosh S @ Giri Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. S.S. Poonacha Vs P.M.Naveen

M.S.Ananda Vs M.Govindappa

Smt Chandramma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner

M/S Udhyaman Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs N a Anjinappa