Smt Marulamma vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Marulamma vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2010

Bench: V.Jagannathan

IN THE

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPRA

Dated the iS
(RR PORE:

IS TWEEN :

Cn
:

~
ae
wt
vF
"i
"
of
=

fan B ieee % thi Budge oy "

i.

rE bend :

deme

-

"

= Sit.Maruiamma, 7 W/o Late ¥.N Rudrege myda, ~ Aged about 63 vears. | Sir.c handy 'ANA, ce udre cBU) we da; 53 vears.

if Go Late Aged about Sri Yash: nmegowsia, Mm OF UF Een 3 S/o Late.' via, ~ Ss 3/o LE aL YON, ik sudregow a thy Aged about a O VEArs.

"Sri Yak: Kumaraswamy . S : fo Latc ¥.N.Rudrcgowda, on Aged. about 47 years,

- Sraty R, Katnamma, D/o Late YN. Rucdre powda, . Aged about 45 vears Al are 1/0 V.Yaradakere (P), Y.Malapura Post, Kadur F aluls, Chikniaegalur District, ret PUGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANE GALLO be day of Pebruarvy 2010 Appellants Nagendra, Advocates. j ANID:

ones Union of india, a a ee oe on aes reget Re be. By ic € FeTier al MUATIAL seuthero Kallway . Park Tow ti, Chenrial.

; RESpONGent.

( by SriS.N. Sudarshan for M/s.Ashok Harnia hall Associates," Advocates. p Miscellaneous RInst Appeal 43()) of Railway Claims' Vrvba mal Ac i AgAISt the order dated 11.1) 2008. passecin OLA, No. oy 200 | on the fue of Railway Clainis " Pribune i Barigalore Bench, HSiIssing is His. appeal Corr vin agony for admission this dav, tne court deliverea the iGllowing UUDGMENT 1ed counsel for the parties finally in preferred by the applicants before

2. The appellants' counsel submits that it is net in dispute yas noldine a valid hcketr fo travel as @ Dasscuger and on 1.9. 2000. when ist the deceased was getting down from Train NOs 2a7 -

Bangalore-Shimoga Passengeer, he fell sustained iniuries and later died. Therefore. when the _ accident occurred when the deceased was tris ig fo ger:

down from the train, the case of theo + therefore, comes within the -expressidn "untoward arid, aS sucho)ine claim application could ner Manes Tribunal.

3. Urn the other hand. the learned counsel for the at the impugned order require respondent Aron interferer ace deceas from the trai . away.trom the nearest railway station and, therefore, the . question of the case of the deceased falling under ClOeS as delmed in Secon 2Gici . Tob arise.

4. HAVING thus nearcd poth sides, | gin of the view wer requires miterference and the ae we ay es mee so ~_ int i i a Ju it foond spl "nt jo "Pd tow om i i Com ony oe aoe

-

ae matter Has to be remanded to the Claims bri iresh cormsiceration not be babie. TAL case, on sole through 4 5 E ine order of 'riburial, | do nor firy any of the cireupistances proviso to Section 124 the Claims: Tribunal WW one ofthe circumstarices mention

28) the claim applic:

not heave been repent . oO. > Rorthe above reasons, the mm ures reraril sideration and hence, the appes! afc Lae wmpucned or iS

- Pémuithed to Ure Tribunal for fresh con Th ne provise to Section LZ44-A pelore recording its fiidiuie on the claim oyade by rt) hae oObServalions made ere above shall not feud ret.

font come ml the wav of the Claims Tribunal in ADE the evidence bidependentiv. Hberty to place anv further evider tn, Tne Clauns Tribunal shall dispose of the case:-witiin:

MS order.

Born 1) prow a pm ical fs oa yo food « en ee fad ete Le jot po > ae 'a a yh i tG appear Before the

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court