Sarfaraj Baig S/O. Rashid Baig vs Union Of India, Mumbai Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9406 Bom

                                                     1               wp3039.2016.odt

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                               Writ Petition No. 3039/2016

     Sarfaraj Baig S/o Rashid Baig, 
     Aged about 27 years, 
     Occ. Auto Driver before accident, 
     R/o Lalkhadi near Maszid, Amravati                   ..... PETITIONER


                                 ...V E R S U S...
     

     Union of India through 
     General Manager, Central Railway, 
     CST, Mumbai                                          ... RESPONDENT

 =====================================
   Shri A.S. Ambatkar, Advocate h/f Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner
                   Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for the respondent
 =====================================

                                              CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
                                              DATED :- 7    December, 2017
                                                         th
                                                                           


 ORAL JUDGMENT :-


                Heard. 

                Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 



 2]             The   petitioner   filed   the   claim   petition   under   Section 

 124A   of   the   Railways   Act  praying  for   the   compensation   on   the 

 ground that he sustained injuries because of the fall from the train 

 while he was traveling from Wardha to Badnera and the fall was 

 caused due to sudden jerk of the train.  The trial progressed. The 




::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017                             ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:54:38 :::
                                                 2                 wp3039.2016.odt

 petitioner   filed   an   application   seeking  permission   to   amend   the 

 claim petition. This application is rejected by the impugned order. 



 3]             The   prayer   of   the   petitioner-applicant   for   grant   of 

 permission to amend the claim petition is opposed on the ground 

 that the petitioner-applicant is seeking to change the nature of the 

 petition and the cause of action by the proposed amendment. 



 4]             After   going   through   the   claim   petition,   the   proposed 

 amendment and the explanation given in the application by the 

 petitioner-applicant, I am of the view, that the Tribunal has taken 

 a hyper-technical view. Looking to the nature of the proceedings, 

 the Tribunal should have taken a pragmatic view. 

                Hence, the following order is passed:-

                                           O R D E R

1] The impugned order is set aside.

2] The application filed by the petitioner-

applicant seeking permission to amend the claim

petition is allowed.

                                                3                  wp3039.2016.odt




                3]             The Tribunal is directed to dispose the claim 

petition till 05/05/2018.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

A n s a r i