Union Of India vs Ku.Anju Harisingh Thakur
2017 Latest Caselaw 3062 Bom

                                            1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No. 326 OF 2001



Appellant              :        Union of India, through General Manager,

                                Central Railway, Mumbai

                                versus

Respondent             :        Ku Aanju Harisingh Thakur, aged about 24

years, resident of Yashwant Nagar, Master

Coloy Hinganghat.

Shri N. P. Lambat, Advocate for appellant

Shri S. K. Sable, Advocate for respondent

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 12th June 2017

Oral Judgment

1. By this appeal, the legality and correctness of the judgment

and order dated 27th April 1998 rendered in Application No. 25/OA-

II/RCT/NGP/97 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur has been

questioned.

2. I have heard Shri N. P. Lambat, learned counsel for the

appellant and Shri S. K. Sable, learned counsel for the respondent. I have

gone through the record of the case including the impugned judgment and

order. I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant

that the impugned judgment and order are delivered in utmost haste by

the Tribunal and that no opportunity, leave aside sufficient opportunity,

was granted to the appellant to rebut the case of the respondent who had

claimed compensation for suffering of the injuries on account of untoward

incident.

3. Shri Sable, learned counsel for the respondent contends that

the Railway Claims Tribunal has delivered the judgment after hearing both

sides and considering the material placed on record and there is no need to

interfere with the same. He further contends that there was neither undue

haste nor violation of the principles of natural justice on the part of the

Tribunal.

4. In my view, contention of learned counsel for the respondent

cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Tribunal has not at all

considered the case of the Railways that tickets in question were collected

at Wardha. It was the specific case of the present respondent that she

along with her brother was travelling on a passenger train and had

boarded at Shegaon and it was bound for Hinganghat when, after leaving

of Shegaon Station, she fell down from the moving train. It was also her

case that she was then accompanied by her brother and that two tickets

bearing nos. 19403 and 19404 were issued to her and her brother.

However, the documentary evidence brought on record by the Railways

shows that the ticket number 19403 was never collected at Wardha; the

other ticket number 19404 was collected at Wardha and that this ticket was

issued not on 8.2.1996, but on 9.2.1996.

5. The collection of a ticket issued on 9.2.1996 at Wardha

Railway Station would be prima facie sufficient to believe the case of the

appellant. However, it appears that this aspect of the case has not at all

been considered by the Tribunal. That was perhaps because of the fact that

on the date on which the delay condonation application was allowed, the

Tribunal proceeded to finally hear and decide the main application of the

claimant. The judgment and order, in the circumstances of the case,

impugned in this appeal, are perverse and cannot sustain the scrutiny of

law. They need to be quashed and set aside and the matter deserves to be

remanded back to the Tribunal for decision afresh.

6. Appeal is allowed with costs. Impugned judgment and order

are quashed and set aside. The matter is referred back to the Railway

Claims Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. Both sides shall

be afforded opportunity of leading evidence.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

Joshi