The Union Of India vs Smt. Leelamma on 29 January, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 8]

Karnataka High Court

The Union Of India vs Smt. Leelamma on 29 January, 2014

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

                              1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

      DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

              M.F.A. No. 3548/2012 (RCT)

BETWEEN:

The Union of India,
Reptd. By its General Manager,
South Western Railway,
Hubli.                               ... APPELLANT

         (BY SRI. V.K. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV.)

AND:

1.     Smt. Leelamma
       W/o Late Jayanna,
       Aged about 40 years.

2.     Kum. Kavya,
       D/o Late Jayanna,
       Minor aged 14 years,
       Reptd. By her natural
       Mother guardian
       Smt. Leelamma Sl.No.1.

Both residents of Halliker,
Bardduru, Bhadravathi Taluk,
Shimoga District.                  ... RESPONDENTS
                             2


     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 20.04.2011 MADE IN O.A. II U 25/2009 BY
THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
BRANCH, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF         RS.4,00,000/-       TO         THE
APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS      WITH     INTEREST
THEREON, AS BEING ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO
LAW.

    THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING
ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Before issuance of notice to the respondents on appeal as well as on I.A. No.1/2012 for condonation of delay, I have gone through the appeal. The grounds taken by the appellant is that the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in answering Issue No.2 against appellant herein on the basis of the evidence of AW-1 and AW-2. Issue No.2 is whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger has been held to be proved by the Claims Tribunal on the basis of evidence of AW-1 and AW-2. The evidence of AW-1 and AW-2 could not have been believed by Claims Tribunal in the absence of 3 production of ticket and considering the evidence of these witnesses in the cross-examination, where they did not maintain what they have deposed in the chief saying AW-1 saw the deceased standing to purchase ticket and AW-2 saw him in the Railway Station.

2. For filing appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, there shall be a substantial question of law. What is contended by the appellant is a disputed fact does not constitute substantial question of law. Under the circumstances, I decline to issue notice on appeal as well as on I.A.1/2012.

3. I.A.I/2012 even if it is allowed no purpose would be served.

Accordingly, I.A.I/2012 is rejected and appeal is also rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE RBV/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court