Smt. Rita Devi vs Union Of India Through General ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 579 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    [Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction]
                           M.A. No. 27 of 2016
          1.Smt. Rita Devi
          2.Avinash Kumar
          3.Subhash Kumar
          4.Miss Suman Priti                           .... .. ...   Appellant(s)
                                       Versus
       Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O. +
       P.S.- Hajipur, District- Hazipur, (Bihar).                      .. ... ... Respondent(s)
                            ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :-Video Conferencing) .........

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate.

       For the Respondent               :     Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, Advocate
                            ..........

07 / 08.02.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

The appellants/claimants have preferred this Misc. Appeal against the judgment/order dated 13.10.2015 passed by learned Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, in Case No.OA (IIU)/RNC/2015/0011.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased (Akhileshwar Ram) died in an accident on 26.01.2014, when his car was dashed by Tata Jamutavi Express at a level crossing gate between Neral & Rama Station comes under the extent of liability as defined under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989, which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-

"124.Extent of liability -When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident." (emphasis supplied) Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that though the issue has been framed, but without recording any evidence on the point of maintainability, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim application without allowing the applicant(s) to place their case in view of Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989, as such, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the learned Tribunal for adducing evidence and adjudicating the issues between the

parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has opposed the same and in support of his submission has placed reliance upon Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and which may profitably be quoted :-

13.Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal -(1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority, as were excercisable immediately before that day by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act,-

(a)relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for-

(i)compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;

(ii)compensation payable under section 82 A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and

(b)in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway.

[(1 A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under section 124-A of the said Act of the rules made thereunder.] [(1-B) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017 (7 of 2017), the jurisdiction, powrs and authority conferred on the Tribunal under Chapter VII of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)].

(2) The provisions of the [Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)] and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act."

As such, the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue under Section 124 of the Railways Act and rightly rejected the same.

This Court when asks a question from learned counsel for the Railway that whether before commencement of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Civil Court had such jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue with regard to Section 124 of the Railways Act or not?

The learned counsel for the Railway has fairly submitted that before commencement of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, it was Civil Court who had jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. But he has submitted that such matter can be agitated in Writ Jurisdiction, as has been done before this Court which has been decided in favour of the claimants against which Railway has preferred Letters Patent Appeal before this Court which is pending.

Considering rival submissions of the parties and since prior to commencement of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, any compensation claimed

by the claimants under Section 124 of the Railways Act were adjudicated by the Civil Court, this Court is of the opinion that under the aforesaid circumstances, Section 13 of the said Act, is expressly mentioned in these issues and the impugned judgment requires to be set aside.

Accordingly, the the judgment/order dated 13.10.2015 passed by learned Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, in Case No.OA (IIU)/RNC/2015/0011 is set aside.

The matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal to adjudicate the same within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties, as it is a benevolent legislation and Railway cannot deny the compensation on the ground that Railway Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

The instant Misc. Appeal stands allowed.

The L.C.R. be sent down at once.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/