Gauhati High Court
Union Of India vs Lithungbemo Lotha on 18 June, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010233362013
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/11/2013
UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI-11, ASSAM.
VERSUS
LITHUNGBEMO LOTHA
S/O LT. SHANCHUMO LOTHA, VILL. YANLUM, P.O. YANOHA, DIST. WOKHA
NAGALAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : MSB DEVI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.K P MAHESWARI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
18-06-2024
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against a judgment and award dated 27.08.2012
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati in OA No.IIu389/2005, New
No. M.16/2010. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Tribunal has awarded an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only to the claimant/applicant
Page No.# 2/5
with interest @ 6% per annum and further interest in case of delay. The appeal
is preferred by the Railways.
2. The facts of the case which emerge from the materials on record revolves
around a claim connected with a bomb blast at the Dimapur Railway Station on
02.10.2004. The respondent had instituted a claim before the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Guwahati for injuries sustained by him in the said bomb blast. The
learned Tribunal, vide the judgment dated 12.01.2007 had awarded an amount
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only. It was clarified that out of the said
amount, Rs.1.2 Lakhs was under Sl. No. 27 of Part III of the Schedule of the
Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules,
1990 and the balance amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) only
was against ten numbers of non-scheduled injuries. The amount granted was
paid which is not in dispute. The respondent thereafter filed an application for
enhancement of the amount contending that he had sustained permanent
disability regarding hearing of both the ears. The basis of the aforesaid claim
was a certificate dated 08.09.2008 issued by the Doctor of the Dimapur Civil
Hospital. The learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2012
had come to a conclusion that the respondent/claimant was entitled to further
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only. The said
compensation was paid under Rule 3 (4) of the aforesaid Rules of 1990. It is
this judgment, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal, which has
been mentioned above.
3. I have heard Shri B. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Railways for the
appellant. I have also heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/claimant.
Page No.# 3/5
4. Shri B. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant has structured his
appeal on two principal grounds. Firstly, he contends that the recourse to Rule 3
(4) of the Rules of 1990 is an erroneous approach. Secondly, he submits that
without prejudice to his first ground of challenge, even the claim was not duly
proved in accordance with law.
5. Elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant, by
referring to Rule 3 (4) of the Rules of 1990 has submitted that the application of
the aforesaid provision would only arise when the injured person subsequently
dies as a result of the injuries sustained. It is submitted that in the instant case,
the enhanced claim is only on a contention that due to the incident, the
claimant had sustained permanent disability on the hearing capacity of both the
ears. Secondly, it is submitted that the basis of the enhanced claim for which
the application was filed on 14.07.2009 was a certificate dated 08.09.2008
issued by the doctor of the Dimapur Civil Hospital. It is submitted that the said
certificate was not proved in accordance with law inasmuch as the doctor, who
has issued the certificate or any other authorized person of the hospital, who
would be competent to vouch for which, was produced as a witness. It is
submitted that when the basis of the enhanced claim was not proved in
accordance with law, the claim is not sustainable.
6. Per contra, Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant
has submitted that even if there is no strict application of Rule 3 (4) of the Rules
of 1990, the spirit would be very much applicable inasmuch as an injured who
subsequently suffers from further complications because of the injuries cannot
be left high and dry. It is submitted that the approach of the learned Tribunal
cannot be faulted with. As regards the certificate dated 08.09.2008, the learned
Page No.# 4/5
counsel submits that though the doctor issuing the certificate was not
examined, the contents of the same are genuine and it was issued by following
the due process of law.
7. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed
before this Court, including the records of the Tribunal have been carefully
examined.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court
to the order dated 20.07.2023 whereby the learned counsel for the
respondent/claimant was directed to obtain instructions.
9. Ms. Sharma, the learned counsel has accordingly submitted that
instructions have been obtained and the concerned doctor is still there. The
aforesaid instructions were directed to be obtained on the aspect as to whether
an effective purpose would be served if the matter is remanded back in the
interest of justice.
10. After considering the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the opinion that even without going into the technical aspect of
deciding as to whether the provision of Rule 3 (4) of the Rules of 1990 would be
applicable in this case, this Court is of the opinion that the reliance on the
certificate without the same being proved in accordance with law could not have
been made the basis for the impugned judgment. However, this Court is of the
view that interest of justice would be served if the matter is remanded back
giving the respondent/claimant an opportunity to prove the certificate in
accordance with law.
Page No.# 5/5
11. Accordingly, while the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2012 is set aside,
the matter stands remanded back to the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Guwahati wherein the respondent/claimant is to be given an opportunity to
prove the certificate dated 08.09.2008 in accordance with law. The records of
the Tribunal be transmitted back immediately and the parties are directed to
appear on 17.07.2024 before the learned Tribunal from which date, the Tribunal
would take charge of the proceedings and complete the exercise as directed
above in an expeditious manner. The claimant is also given liberty to produce
the concerned witness without praying for issuance for summons.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
