Allowed

Chakravarthy v. Union of India

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024MFA/2686/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents claimed railway accident compensation for their son who fell from a crowded train. The Tribunal held the death an untoward incident but found dependency unproved. The High Court held the documentary evidence established parentage and dependency, set aside the dismissal, and awarded compensation with interest to the mother.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order set aside; Rs.4,00,000 compensation with 6% p.a. interest from date of accident, released to the deceased's mother.

Chakravarthy Vs Union of India — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:4482 MFA No. 2686 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2686 OF 2014 (RCT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHAKRAVARTHY S/O PONNUSWAMY (DIED ON 17.09.2016)

¶10

(A) SMT. INDRAMMA D/O LATE CHKRAVARTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(B) SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE CHKRAVARTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE

¶13

¶14

SMT. PANCHAVARNA W/O CHAKRAVARTHI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: COOLIE

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:4482 MFA No. 2686 of 2014

¶17

ALL ARE R/O KUDLUGERE VILLAGE SUBRAMANYA BEEDI, BEHIND KEB BHADRAVATHI TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

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

¶20

AND:

¶21

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI ABHINAY Y T, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶24

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.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The counsel for the respondent is absent.

¶28

This appeal is filed questioning the dismissal of

¶29

claim petition filed by the claimants who claims that they are the parents of deceased Vadivelu who met with the

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4482 MFA No. 2686 of 2014

¶31

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.

¶32

The Tribunal having considered the material

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:4482 MFA No. 2686 of 2014

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4482 MFA No. 2686 of 2014

¶39

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.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:4482 MFA No. 2686 of 2014

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:4482 MFA No. 2686 of 2014

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:4482 MFA No. 2686 of 2014

¶50

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶51

the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The appeal is allowed.

¶54

The impugned order dated 07.02.2014 passed in O.A.II U 166/2010 by the Railway Claims Tribunal,

¶55

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.

¶56

The Tribunal is ordered to release the entire amount

¶57

in favour of the mother of the deceased.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Chakravarthy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakravarthy 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 Satish Kumar Vs Sri Gangadhar

The Executive Engineer Vs B N Kanti

Sri. M. Devaraja Vs Smt. Panbai

H Shivakumar Vs M/S Sri Srinivasa Charitable Trust

Sri. M R Mohan Kumar Vs Nil

Sri. a Nagaraja Vs M/S Solomon David Holdings Private Limited