# Anil Kumar Chaturvedi v. Union of India

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 63
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-07
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 635 of 2018
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-chaturvedi-v-union-of-india-51451
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

tribunal-JurisdictionImpugned order-petition has been returned to
the appellant as the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Lucknow Bench, has no jurisdiction - tribunal at
Gorakhpur has jurisdiction- claim petition was
filed in the year, 2011 - returned after 7 years-
the normal residence of the appellant is not at
Lucknow - in place of returning the claim
petition - liberty should have been granted to
the applicant to move an application before the
Chairman -for transfer of the case -or the
tribunal itself could have directed to put
up the matter before the Chairman to
consider
for
transfer-
Rule
8-
the
application for compensation can be filed
before
the
Bench
having
territorial
jurisdiction over the place from which the
passenger obtains or purchases his pass
or tickets -or where the incident or
untoward incident had occurred or where
the place of destination station lies or
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
where the claimant normally resides.
Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Anil Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India
63
presume the existence of fact that the
property purchased by Hindu husband
in the name of his spouse, who is
homemaker
and
does
not
have
independent source of income, will be the
property of family, because in common
course of natural event Hindu husband
purchases a property in the name of his
wife, who is homemaker and does not
have any source of income for the
benefit of family. Therefore, in such
case prima facie the property is joint
Hindu family property and protection
of property from transferring to a
third party is necessary, consequently
this Court finds that the Court below,
while passing the impugned order
dated 25.04.2023 has not applied his
mind despite being a prima facie case,
and
in
such
case
protection
is
necessary against further transferring
the property or changing the nature of
same, if same is not protected, there
are chances the property may be
transferred or nature of property may
be changed in that case even if the
appellant's suit is decreed, then he will
suffer irreparable loss and injury.

16. Therefore, the order dated
25.07.2023 passed by Civil Judge
(S.D.), Hardoi in Civil Suit No.23
of 2023 (Saurabh Gupta vs Smt.
Archna Gupta and others) is hereby
set
aside.
Injunction
application
filed by the appellant bearing Paper
No.13(g)
is
allowed,
and
respondents
are
restrained
from
transferring the property in dispute
during the pendency of the suit. As
the dispute is between the real
brothers
and
the
suit
is
still
pending,
therefore,
it
would
appropriate the Court below will
decide the same expeditiously in
accordance with law without giving
any
unnecessary
adjournment
to
either of the parties.

17. With the observation above, the
appeal is allowed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 63
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 635 of 2018

Anil Kumar Chaturvedi ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Manish Kumar Srivastava, Chandra Prakash
Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Ambrish Rai, Jai Prakash Tripathi, Sm Singh
Royekwar

Railway
claim
tribunal-JurisdictionImpugned order-petition has been returned to
the appellant as the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Lucknow Bench, has no jurisdiction - tribunal at
Gorakhpur has jurisdiction- claim petition was
filed in the year, 2011 - returned after 7 years-
the normal residence of the appellant is not at
Lucknow - in place of returning the claim
petition - liberty should have been granted to
the applicant to move an application before the
Chairman -for transfer of the case -or the
tribunal itself could have directed to put
up the matter before the Chairman to
consider
for
transfer-
Rule
8-
the
application for compensation can be filed
before
the
Bench
having
territorial
jurisdiction over the place from which the
passenger obtains or purchases his pass
or tickets -or where the incident or
untoward incident had occurred or where
the place of destination station lies or
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
where the claimant normally resides.
Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. Morgina Begum vs Managing Director
Hanuma Plantation Ltd; AIR 2008 SCC 199

2. Pankaj Kumar vs U.O.I.-FAFO no.767 of 2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Manish
Kumar
Srivastava learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Ambrish Rai learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. This First Appeal From Order
under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act as well as under Chapter 9 of
the High Court Rules has been filed against
the order dated 06.07.2018 passed in Case
no.O.A/II/U/979/11;
Anil
Kumar
Chaturvedi vs Union of India by Railway
Claims
Tribunal,
Lucknow
Bench,
Lucknow by means of which the petition
has been returned to the appellant as the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow (hereinafter referred as Tribunal)
has no jurisdiction to try the case and the
tribunal at Gorakhpur has jurisdiction.

3. Submission of learned counsel for
the appellant is that the claim petition was
filed in the year, 2011 and it has been
returned after 7 years, whereas in case, the
tribunal was of the view that the tribunal
concerned has no jurisdiction then it could
have been returned at the threshold by the
Registrar. He further submits that as per
Rule 8 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 1989, the application for
compensation can also be filed where the
claimant normally resides, therefore, the
claim petition is maintainable before the
tribunal at Lucknow also because the
appellant normally resides at Lucknow. In
this regard, the applicant had filed a
certificate issued by the Corporator to the
effect
that
the
appellant
resides
at
Bahadurpur, P.S-Gudamba, Kursi Road,
Lucknow, but it has been discarded only on
the ground that the appellant could not file
the copy of the gas connection, electricity
bill, receipt of the house etc, whereas it is
not required, once, the certificate of the
Corporator was filed. As such, learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the
impugned order is not sustainable and it is
liable to be set aside with a direction to the
tribunal concerned to decide the claim
petition expeditiously. Learned counsel for
the appellant relies on the judgment and
order dated 12.07.2018 passed in FAFO
no.767 of 2012 (Pankaj Kumar vs Union of
India).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the appellant is
resident of Gram Chaubepur, Post & P.S-
Phephna, District-Ballia, the address which
was given by the appellant in the claim
petition also. The accident had occurred at
Sagarpali railway station and the appellant
claims that he was travelling from Amlai to
Ballia on 04.09.2011, when the alleged
accident had occurred, which falls under
the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Gorakhpur and not in the
jurisdiction of Railway Claims Tribunal,
Lucknow.
The
appellant
was
cross
examined in regard to the address of
Lucknow, where he claims that he normally
resides. In the cross examination, the
appellant admitted that he does not reside at
Lucknow after the accident and he only
used to come to Lucknow. He further
submits that certificate of Corporator
cannot be said to be conclusive proof of the
ordinary residence of the appellant at
Lucknow because the said certificate has
2 All. Anil Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India
65
been issued only on the basis of the facts
which were brought to his knowledge,
which is mentioned in the certificate itself.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the
appellant normally resides at Lucknow on
the given address. Thus, the submission is
that the claim petition has rightly been
returned in accordance with law. The
appeal is misconceived and liable to be
dismissed.

5. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

6. The appellant had filed the claim
petition before the Tribunal at Lucknow
claiming compensation in regard to the
accident held at Sagarpali, Railway Station,
while the appellant was traveling from
Amlai to Ballia on a second class ticket of
the train on 04.09.2011. The claim petition
was filed showing his address as resident of
Gram Chaubepur, Post & P.S.-Phephna,
District-Ballia. However, in column no.14
of the claim petition, in regard to the local
address of the petitioner, Bhendahapur, P.SGudamba, District-Lucknow has been
shown as his local address.

7. Perusal of the order sheet of the
tribunal indicates that the case was
registered and the notices were issued. The
respondent filed the written statement
raising a plea of jurisdiction in paragraph15
that
the
claim
petition
is
not
maintainable
before
the
tribunal
at
Lucknow on the ground that the journey
has been shown from Amlai to Ballia and
the place of incident was near Sagar Pali
railway station and the address of the
applicant has been shown in Ballia District
and all these places do not come under the
jurisdiction of the tribunal at Lucknow. It
has further been stated that the application
has been filed on the basis of local address
but no documentary proof of it has been
filed, as such the application is not
maintainable
before
the
tribunal
at
Lucknow.

8. The tribunal, while observing as to
whether the case is maintainable as alleged
in
para-15,
framed
four
issues
on
28.03.2012. Thereafter, in support of the
proof of the local address, the appellant
filed an undated certificate issued by the
Corporator as paper no.11/1 along with an
application for taking document on record
on 25.08.2015. On the said date, the
additional issue no.5 was framed "whether
this Bench of tribunal has territorial
jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of this
case". It was also observed that this issue
shall be taken as preliminary issue and shall
be decided at first during pronouncement of
judgment as it requires evidence also.
Thereafter, the evidence was adduced by
the parties. The appellant was also cross
examined on the point of local address on
29.01.2016.

9.

The
tribunal
decided
the
preliminary
issue
by
means
of
the
impugned order and held that on the basis
of evidence, it is not proved that the
appellant resides in Lucknow, therefore, the
tribunal at Lucknow has no jurisdiction to
hear and decide the claim petition,
accordingly, returned the claim petition to
the appellant by means of the impugned
order dated 06.07.2018. Feeling aggrieved
the instant FAFO has been filed.

10. Section 14 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as
the Act of 1987) provides the distribution
of business amongst Benches. Sub-section
(2) of Section 14 provides that if any
question arises as to whether any matter
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
falls within the purview of the business
allocated to a Bench, the decision of the
Chairman shall be final. The explanation
appended to the Section 14 provides that
the expression "matters" includes an
application under Section 20. Section 20 of
the Act of 1987 provides the power of
Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench
to another on the application of any of the
parties.

11. Rule 3 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal
(Procedure)
Rules,
1989
(hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1989)
provides the territorial jurisdiction of
Benches which is extracted hereinbelow:

"3.Territorial
jurisdiction
of
Benches-(1) The number of Benches, the
headquarter
of
and
the
territorial
jurisdiction of a Bench shall be as specified
in Sch.I and Sch I(A).

(2)If an application is received by
a Bench which does not have territorial
jurisdiction to deal with the matter, the
Registrar of the bench shall return the
application to the applicant.

(3)Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-rule (2) the applicant may
apply to the Chairman and the Chairman
may thereupon for reasons recorded in
writing direct a Bench other than the Bench
before which an application has been filed
to hear such application and issue such
orders as may be necessary for the transfer
of the application."

12. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989
provides the place of filing application for
compensation in accident or untoward
incident
claim,
which
is
extracted
hereinbelow:-

"8. Place of filing application
for compensation in accident or untoward
incident
claim-
An
application
for
compensation payable under Sections 124
and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of
1989) may be filed before the Bench having
territorial jurisdiction over the place from
which the passenger obtains or purchases
his pass or tickets or where the accident or
untoward incident occurs or where the
place of destination station lies or where
the claimant normally resides."

13. According to the aforesaid Rule 8,
the application for compensation can be
filed before the Bench having territorial
jurisdiction over the place from which the
passenger obtains or purchases his pass or
tickets or where the incident or untoward
incident had occurred or where the place of
destination station lies or where the
claimant normally resides.

14. In the present case, the
appellant has filed the application
before the tribunal at Lucknow claiming
that he normally resides at Lucknow. In
support of his claim for the address at
Lucknow, a certificate of Corporator
has been filed. The certificate has been
issued by the Corporator on a printed
proforma, which is extracted here-inbelow:-

प्रमाण-पत्र
(निवास, आय, जानि)

श्री/ श्रीमिी/ कु0 अनिल कुमार चिुवेदी

पुत्र/ पुत्री/ पत्िी/ श्री स्व0 द्वारीकािाथ चौबे

निवासी भेडहापुरा लखिऊ

लखिऊ के निवासी है नजिकी जानि X

इिके नपिा/ मािा /अनभभावक X

की मानसक आय लगभग X प्रनिमाह है I

उपरोक्त ित्व जहााँ िक मेरी संज्ञाि मे लाया गया उसके
अिुसार में इिके उज्जवल भनवष्य की कामिा करिा ह ाँ I"
2 All. Anil Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India
67

15. The certificate has been issued by
the Corporator on a printed proforma. It is
mentioned at the bottom of the certificate
that to the extent the aforesaid fact has been
brought to his knowledge, he wishes for his
bright future. The appellant was cross
examined on this point on 29.01.2016. In
the cross examination, he admitted that he
is permanent resident of Ballia and he used
to reside in Lucknow from the year, 2010
i.e. from the date of accident. Thereafter, he
himself stated that he does not reside here
after the accident and he used to come
occasionally, therefore, the contradictory
statement has been given by the appellant
in his cross examination. On one hand, he
says that he resides in Lucknow after the
accident in 2010 and on the other hand, he
says that he does not reside here after the
accident. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the appellant can not be treated to
be a normal resident of Lucknow, merely
on the basis of certificate of Corporator,
which has been issued only on the basis of
information provided to him, without any
enquiry or proof.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Morgina Begum vs Managing
Director Hanuma Plantation Ltd; AIR
2008 SCC 199, has held that the statements
of the claimant regarding place of residence
given cannot be doubted to be false simply
because they have not produced the
documents to show that in fact they are
residing at the said place, however, other
party wanted to prove that they were
deposing false, they should have been cross
examined.

17. In view of above, in case of
raising doubt about the place of residence
of the claimant, he can be cross examined.
Once he has been cross examined and on
the basis of cross examination it has been
found that he normally does not reside at
the given address, the certificate submitted
by the applicant cannot be accepted as
proof of normal residence of appellant,
coupled with the fact that the certificate
itself indicates that the same has been
issued only on the basis of the facts brought
to the knowledge of concerned Corporator.
It also shows that it has been issued without
verifying the facts and any enquiry.

18. One of the submissions of learned
counsel for the appellant is that in case the
tribunal at Lucknow had no jurisdiction to
entertain and decide the claim petition filed
by the appellant, it should have been
returned to him by the Registrar of the
Bench and if it was not returned it cannot
be returned by the tribunal after such a long
time,, therefore, the question arises as to
whether, if the Registrar of the Bench, after
receipt of the application has not returned
the application on the ground that the
Bench does not have territorial jurisdiction
to deal with the matter, it can not be
returned by the tribunal, even if, it finds
that the tribunal has no jurisdiction.

19. Section 11 of Rules of 1989
provides the scrutiny of applications. Sub-
Section (1) of Section 11 provides that the
Registrar or the officer authorised by him
shall endorse on every application, the date
on which it is presented or received through
post
under
Rule
5,
and
sign
the
endorsement. Sub-Rule (2) provides that if,
on scrutiny, the application is found to be in
order, it shall be registered and given a
serial number, therefore, in case the
application is found in order on scrutiny,
the same is to be registered and given a
serial number.

20. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1989
provides the documents to accompany the
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application
which
is
extracted
hereinbelow:-

"7. Documents to accompany
the application. - (1) Every application for
compensation
in
respect
of
loss,
destruction, damage, deterioration or nondelivery of animals or goods or in respect
of refund of fare or freight shall be
accompanied by the following documents,
namely:-

(a)
copy
of
the
railway
receipt/parcel way bill/luggage ticket;

(b) original sale invoice (Bijak),
if any;

(c) copy of order or letter, if any,
of the railway administration deciding the
claim of the party;

(d) copy of the original certificate
issued by the railway ad-ministration
regarding loss, deterioration or damage to
the goods, at the time of granting open
delivery or assessment delivery;

[(e) copy of notice under section
106 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of
1989);]

(f) copies of any other relevant
document in possession of the applicant.

[(2) The documents referred to in
sub-rule (1) may be attested by a legal
practitioner or by a Gazetted Officer of the
Central
Government
or
a
State
Government.

(3) An application filed under
sub-rule (1) of rule 5 by a legal
practitioner shall be accompanied by a
vakalatnama and that by an agent shall be
accompanied by a document authorizing
him to act as such.

(4)
When
any
document
accompanying an application or reply
appears to be defaced, torn, or in any way
damaged or otherwise its condition or
appearance requires special notice, a
mention
regarding
its
condition
and
appearance shall be made by the party
producing the same in the index of such
application or reply, as the case may be,
and the same shall be verified by the
Registrar.]"

21. The aforesaid provision does not
provide for filing of the proof of residence
along with an application, therefore, once
the claimant (appellant in the present case)
mentions the local address of the applicant,
if any, in Clause 14 of the application and
on the basis of the said local address, if the
claim petition is maintainable before the
tribunal concerned (Lucknow in the present
case), it could not have been returned by
the Registrar and liable to be registered, as
has been done in the present case.
However, once a plea of jurisdiction was
raised in the written statement and the issue
was framed to this effect, it has rightly been
decided in accordance with law after
framing the issue to this effect because the
tribunal has to see as to whether the
tribunal has jurisdiction or not to hear and
decide the claim and it can not be said that
if the Registrar of the Bench has not
returned the application on the ground of
jurisdiction, it can not be decided by the
tribunal and the application can not be
returned.

22. Considering the plea of the parties
and the documents placed on record, the
tribunal found that the normal residence of
the appellant is not at Lucknow and
accordingly directed to return the claim
petition to the appellant as the case does
not fall within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal at Lucknow. This Court is of the
view that the learned tribunal has rightly
and in accordance with law has decided
that the tribunal at Lucknow has no
jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim
petition filed by the appellant as the
2 All. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Vs. Suresh & Ors.
69
appellant has failed to prove that he
normally resides at Lucknow. Therefore,
once the claim petition has been returned, it
can be filed by the appellant before the
Bench of tribunal, which is competent to
decide the same.

23. In the present case, as submitted
by learned counsel for the appellant, the
pleadings are complete and evidence has
also been adduced by the appellant and
relevant document in evidence by the
respondent has also been placed on record,
which could not be disputed, therefore,
since the claim petition was filed in the
year, 2011 and the issue has been decided
by means of the impugned judgment and
order dated 06.07.2018 and the Chairman
of the Tribunal has a power to transfer the
case on an application moved by the
applicant, this Court is of the view that in
place of returning the claim petition to the
applicant/appellant, the liberty should have
been granted to the applicant to move an
application
before
the
Chairman
for
transfer of the case or the tribunal itself
could have directed to put up the matter
before the Chairman to consider for
transfer of the case in the interest of justice
and to save the time of the tribunal in the
facts and circumstances of the case.

24. This Court also, in FAFO no.767
of 2012 (Pankaj Kumar vs Union of India),
relied by learned counsel for the appellant,
has held that the applicant can also apply
for transfer of the case to the Chairman.

25. In view of above and considering
the over all facts and circumstances of the
case, the impugned judgment and order
dated 06.07.2018 is set aside only to the
extent it directs to return the claim petition
to the appellant/applicant Anil Kumar
Chaturvedi and modifies it to the effect that
the appellant may move to the Chairman
for transfer of the case to the appropriate
Bench of the tribunal having jurisdiction to
hear and decide the claim.

26. It is further provided that in case,
the
application
is
moved
by
the
applicant/appellant before the Chairman
within a period of four weeks from today,
the
Chairman
shall
take
appropriate
decision on the application within a period
of four weeks thereafter in light of the
observations made above by this Court in
this order. Consequences shall follow
accordingly as per law.

27. With the aforesaid, the appeal is
partly allowed only to the aforesaid extent.
No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 69
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1710 of 2023

ICICI Lombard General Insurance
 ...Appellant
Versus
Suresh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rahul Sahai, Sri Aditya Parihar

Counsel for the Respondents:

Maintainability of appeal u/s 173(2) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- pecuniary limit for
filing of an appeal against an award of a Claims
Tribunal has been raised to 'one lakh rupees'
from the earlier limit of 'ten thousand rupees-
the effect of the Amending Act 32 of 2019-