Partly allowed

Sangeetha v. Union of India

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2023WP/28013/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, quashing the Railway Claims Tribunal order that dismissed duplicate compensation applications. The Court restored one application for prosecution, denied interest pending the case, but upheld the Tribunal's direction to prosecute the petitioner for false declarations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside regarding one application; said application restored for prosecution; dismissal of other application ordered; interest denied from date of impugned order; prosecution directio

Sangeetha Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 28013 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 28013 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SANGEETHA , W/O LATE AMBARISH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O 8-886, GUNJ ROAD, LOHAR GALLI, MAHADEV NAGAR, KALABURAGI - 585 104.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. N RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. M R HIREMATHAD., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH - WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT - 23.

¶10

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T., ASG)

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.5.2018 PASSED BY THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN O.A.NO. 14/2018 VIDE ANNEX-C AND DIRECT THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IN TO FILE. AND ETC.,

¶14

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN

¶15

'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP No. 28013 of 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Challenging order dated 28.05.2018 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench at Bangalore, (for short, 'Tribunal') dismissing applications filed by petitioner, this writ petition is filed.

¶20

Sri N.Ramakrishna, advocate appearing on behalf of Sri.M.R.Hiremathad, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner being an illiterate, had filed application under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, claiming compensation for death of her husband on 09.02.2017 in an untoward incident involving railway. However, due to inadvertence aided by illiteracy, two applications were filed on same cause of action.

¶21

Taking note of double claim, Tribunal dismissed both, without providing opportunity to petitioner to prosecute any one of them. It was also submitted while passing impugned order, Tribunal had also directed registration of FIR against petitioner. Assailing said order, instant writ petition was filed. It was submitted that filing of application claiming compensation was based on genuine cause of action and filing of double claim application was only due to ignorance and illiteracy of petitioner. When same was not due to any malafide intention,

¶22

¶23

WP No. 28013 of 2018

¶24

direction to file criminal case apart from dismissal of claim in entirety would be disproportionate and excessively harsh therefore, impugned order called for interference. It was submitted that in view of facts and circumstances, petitioner ought to have been permitted to prosecute one of applications while dismissing other. It was submitted that in case of option, petitioner chooses to pursue O.A.no.14/2018 (Annexure-A) and seeks for confining order of dismissal to other application only with liberty to pursue above mentioned application.

¶25

On other hand, Sri Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for respondent at outset submitted that above writ petition was not tenable, as petitioner was guilty of suppression of material facts, as she had declared in both applications that there was no other claim in respect of same cause of action, which was found to be false. It was submitted that while first application at Annexure-A was filed on 08.01.2018, second application at Annexure-B was filed on 05.02.2018 through another counsel. Since petitioner does not dispute filing of two applications with false declaration, direction issued by Tribunal for action against

¶26

same would be fully justified and would not call for interference. Learned counsel further submitted that in

¶27

¶28

WP No. 28013 of 2018

¶29

pursuance of impugned order, at present petitioner was already

¶30

facing prosecution and sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶31

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and records.

¶32

On perusal of applications filed by petitioner at Annexures-A and B, it is seen that both applications are filed before same Tribunal, i.e. at Bangalore, although through different counsel, shortly after date of death of petitioner's husband allegedly in an untoward incident involving railway.

¶33

Fact that both claim applications filed before same Tribunal, there cannot be presumption of malafide intention to defraud respondents. On other hand, same can be attributed to petitioner's illiteracy, ignorance or inadvertence.

¶34

Since provisions for filing claim application seeking compensation under Railways enactments are beneficial legislations framed for enabling claiming compensation by victims of untowards incidents, rejection of both claims would not be justified even though petitioner had filed two applications, in facts and circumstances of this case.

¶35

Under circumstances, rejection of both applications would be unjustified. Since petitioner has chosen to pursue only one application i.e. application O.A.no.14/2018 (Annexure-A),

¶36

¶37

WP No. 28013 of 2018

¶38

relief in this writ petition is confined only to rejection of application in O.A.no.14/2018 (Annexure-A), while ordering that rejection of other application which shall be without prejudice to pursue above application. Since dismissal of applications can be attributed entirely to petitioner only, it would be appropriate to deny interest for said period.

¶39

Hence, writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned

¶40

order is set aside only insofar as O.A.no.14/2018 (Annexure-A) which stands restored to file before Tribunal.

¶41

Petitioner would be at liberty to pursue same in accordance with law without prejudice due to dismissal of application i.e., O.A.no.29/2018 at (Annexure-B).

¶42

However, direction issued by Tribunal for prosecution against petitioner is not interfered with.

¶43

It is also clarified that petitioner would not be entitled

¶44

for interest from date of passing of impugned order till today, in case petitioner succeeds in claim application.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

MKM CT:STK

Sangeetha v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeetha 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

Sri K G Lakshminarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Chetan Travels Vs Deputy Director

Sri. Sreenivasaiah v Vs Smt. Susheela

Chandranayaka Vs Javaranayaka

Mr K M Shetty Vs Karnataka Fire & Emergency Services

M/S. Margadarsi Chits (Kar) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mrs. S. Shobha