_}-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED 'I'HIS T1" 3 24"' DAY OF NOVEMBER. 2009
BEFORE
'me HONBLE l\/iR.JUS"E'ICE SUBl"iAS1"1 L3.Ar)1.L..._"4L
l\/IISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4001./2'0O:9 A
BE'W\/"EDEN:
The Union of India V
Represented by its General Manager.
South Western Railway.
Seeunderabad.
.,v.APri1?I;I.;A:N'r"fg
(By Sri. N.S. Sanjay Gowda
AND:
1.
.4 4. _ 1 'years.
Smt. Mahadevir ._ 2. A
W/0 late
Aged 53 yejarsg
Ku111al{n_"1a. A All _ » _
D/0 131:0 Dale I\/'I:--;:a;j'1L3';y1.' ._ '
Aged '19-ryearsl - ' "
Kumari Yalla-mn'1aV. A ._
D/Qj1a"1,e.Da1e 'Ma_rl-appal
' A}1é1s.+¢:r..$i:i§iaj$1;--a,
S {[0 iérte :iZ!ale.l.l'»{l:{1'e1p}3a.
Aged 12
Respondents 3 and 4 being m.ir10rs
are repxiesented by t:l"1eir member and
r1a{i:---'Aral gL1.ardiam. the l.~'='1-resporldenl,
_A;'11.1_TTC5sidir1g at Kayamal Village.
_V 'ivfadgir 'l'a1Lzk,
A C}L11.ba1rga District".
. . . RESPOND ENTS
AW Al/V2'. AW2 ithougli has alleged that she retained the
t.ilC.EgeiL..anci..was also travelling, however. she has stated that. she
lrl'e.s.t_i¢o_);lecl the same aftei.' some time. whereas. the Inquest Report.
'shows that, ticket, was foiinci in possession of the deeeasecl.
-2-
This lV.{iseell.arieoi.:s First Appeal is filed under Section
23(1) of Railways Claims Tribunal Act" against the _ji.1clgme1e1t
dated: 20.3.2009 passed in OA No.54/2007 on the file of the
Railway Claims Tribunal. Baiigailore. awarding eompensat,ion--.of
Rs.4.00.000/ W with interest at 9% PA. from the date of <)_i*i:¥e'i'«._i.ill.
Da}'Ine1e11.. A
This appeal Coming on for Admission this clay",
delivered the following: .. '-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the UI11>.0 Ivl'”~._0l’ oil
Railways. against: the judgrnent dated
20.3.2009. ll 2
2. Claimants Mareppa, who
alleged to have of railway aeeiclent.
while he xvats to Yaclgiri. The claim
petition was on the ground that. the
deceased ;WasA not bo’i1a~lfi.de: passenger in the railways nor
lflhefe. Eevicfenéee that he was travelling in the said
train,’ li<i..th.is,: evidence was led by both the sides.
3.”On ..__l:5eha:ll’ of the Cl8.iI1’ia1’1l.S. claimants got. examined
9%’
‘
E -3-
4. The learned ctmmsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that, the ease of the claimants is that, the ticket was
with AW2, whereas. the Inquest Report shows that. it was found
with the deceased. This itself shows that. the ease
claimants was not genuine and the deceased was i1ot”’Ei«bo.:’_i}21i’ ;_
tide passenger. Only for the purpose of the
statement has been made.
5. Insofar as Inquest Report’_ is eoAneerned._~l?it.this not”
disputed. The Inquest Report allegels::ti1at.,
found with the ticket, may be ‘itlie ticket.
was with her and she the inquest.
Report is produced t:lA1at§bth’e travelling in
the train is not? poi.nt,ed is not
materially It is found that,
the de(:easecll”A_was during the course of
travelling in an findings of fg1CES. I find no
grrxtind with ____ __t.}v1e judgment: and award of the
TI”ill.Z).’}I’i3.’VlV.'” .. 1′ V A
Hence’. zippepaliails and same is dismissed.
sd/~
JUDGE