Bombay High Court
Ujwala Sudhakar Bhalerao And Ors vs The Union Of India Thr The G.M., ... on 19 July, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NO.2617/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2617 OF 2016
1. Ujwala w/o Sudhakar Bhalerao,
Age Major, Occu. Household,
R/o. At Sawangi, Harsul,
Taluka and District Aurangabad.
2. Rohit s/o Sudhakar Bhalerao,
Age 14 years, Occu. Student,
R/o as above.
3. Neha d/o Sudhakar Bhalerao,
Age 12 years, Occu. Student,
R/o As above.
4. Diksha d/o Sudhakar Bhalerao,
Age 8 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. As above.
5. Baburao s/o Kaduba Bhalerao,
Age 68 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o As above.
6. Tarabai w/o Baburao Bhalerao,
Age 66 years, Occu. Household,
R/o As above.
...APPELLANTS
(Orig.Claimant)
VERSUS
The Union of India
Through the General Manager,
Western Railway, Mumbai.
...RESPONDENT
...
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:58:43 :::
2 FA NO.2617/2016
Advocate for Appellants : Mr.Deshmukh Mohit R.
Mr.Navandar Manish N., Adv., for respondent / sole.
...
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
Dated: July 19, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard. Admit. With the consent of learned
Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. The present appeal is filed against the orders
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, in Claim
Application No.OA (IIU)/MCC/2012/1317 dated 6/2/2015
and in Restoration Application No.27/2015 dated
8/6/2015. Both the aforesaid orders are questioned in
the present appeal.
3. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the
accident claim petition for the reason that despite due
opportunities given to the claimants they did not proceed
with the matter. The appellants, thereafter, filed
Restoration Petition No.27/2015, however, the same has
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:58:43 :::
3 FA NO.2617/2016
also been dismissed for want of prosecution.
4. Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for
the appellants, submits that since the claimants are
residents of this region, they have engaged the Counsel
from this region to represent them before the Railway
Claims Tribunal at Mumbai, however, unfortunately, on the
dates fixed for hearing, neither learned Counsel could
appear before the Tribunal nor the appellants did appear
before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel submitted that the
appellants were under bona fide impression that unless
they receive some instructions from their lawyer, they
need not appear before the Tribunal and that was the
reason that they also did not appear before the Tribunal.
Learned Counsel submits that the appellants now
undertake to proceed with the claim petition expeditiously
and without seeking any adjournment for conducting the
matter before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel submits that
if the present appeal is not allowed, the appellants will
suffer irreparable loss and they would not have any
opportunity to contest their matter on merits.
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:58:43 :::
4 FA NO.2617/2016
5. Mr.Navandar, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent, has strongly opposed for granting the prayer
of the appellants stating that due opportunities were
already granted by the Tribunal and only after taking into
consideration the consistent absence of the appellants that
the order was ultimately passed thereby dismissing the
claim petition in default. Learned Counsel further
submitted that the appellants were having opportunity to
amend themselves while conducting the restoration
application, however, since the same conduct was
displayed while conducting the restoration application, the
Tribunal was left with no option than to dismiss the
restoration application and, therefore, no more leniency
needs to be shown having regard to the conduct of the
appellants.
6. After having considered the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the
respective parties, though it apparently appears that the
appellants were not diligent in prosecuting their claim and
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:58:43 :::
5 FA NO.2617/2016
despite repeated opportunities, they did not proceed with
the petition; ultimately, it appears to me that the
appellants need to be given an opportunity to contest their
petition on merits. In view of the fact that now the
appellants have undertaken to proceed with the claim
petition expeditiously without seeking adjournments, it
appears to me that the request needs to be accepted.
Learned Counsel for the respondent thereupon submitted
that, in such circumstances, the appellants may be dis-
entitled from claiming any interest of the intervening
period which has been spent only because of negligence on
the part of the appellants in case the claim petition is
allowed. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants
has accepted the said proposal and he also submits that
the claimants may not insist for interest for the intervening
period from 6.2.2015 till this date. In view of the
submission so made, following order is passed:
ORDER
1) The appeal is allowed.
2) The impugned orders are set aside.
6 FA NO.2617/2016
Consequently, Restoration Application stands allowed. The
Claim Petition stands restored to original file.
3) The parties are directed to appear before the
Railway Claims Tribunal on 12th of August, 2016, and
proceed with the hearing of the petition.
4) In the circumstances of the case, no order as to
costs.
ig ( P.R. BORA, J. )
...
agp/2617-16fa
