Kerala High Court
Sai Sandhya vs Union Of India on 14 November, 2024
2024:KER:84918
M.F.A (RCT) No.37/2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 23RD KARTHIKA,
1946
MFA (RCT) NO. 37 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 12.10.2017 IN OA(IIU) ERS/54/2015
ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/APPLICANT:
1 SAI SANDHYA
AGED 36 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE. SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN.
2 JHANAVI UNNIKRISHNAN
AGED 15 YEARS (MINOR), DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI.
UNNIKRISHNAN.
3 DHWANI UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 11 YEARS (MINOR),
DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN
APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED BY
THEIR NEXT FRIEND MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT SMT. SAI
SANDHAYA. ALL APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT SAI SANDHYA
HOUSE, OTTATHENGU PO,ALAVIL, KANNUR, KERALA-670008.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIL S.RAJ; SRI.T.ABY JACOB
SMT.ANILA PETER ; SMT.RAJANI.K.N.
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.; SRI.SUDHEESH.S
SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
CHENNAI-3
BY ADV MAHESWARY.G, CGC
THIS MFA (RCT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.11.2024, THE COURT ON 14.11.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:84918
M.F.A (RCT) No.37/2018 2
JUDGMENT
The order dated 12.10.2017 of the Ernakulam Bench of
Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing O.A. No.54 of 2015, is under
challenge in this appeal at the instance of the applicants therein.
2. The aforesaid Original Application was filed by the wife
and two minor children of deceased Unnikrishnan who is said to
have suffered death due to accidental fall from Train No.56657 at
Mahe Railway Station at about 3.15 pm., on 01.07.2014 while he
was travelling from Mahe to Kannur. In the aforesaid proceedings,
the appellants tendered evidence on 02.06.2017 through the proof
affidavit and the oral testimony in cross examination of the 1st
appellant as PW1. Eight documents related to the accident were
also brought on record. Thereafter, on 04.10.2017, the appellants
filed I.A.No.11 of 2017 for reopening the evidence for the purpose
of examination of one more witness by name Roshith A.K., who was
said to have accompanied the deceased while he was taken to the
Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode in an ambulance. The
examination of the aforementioned witness was requested stating
2024:KER:84918
the reason that the said person had noticed journey ticket in the
shirt's pocket of the deceased.
3. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 12.10.2017
rebuked the applicants for their request to reopen evidence and to
examine additional witness, by observing that the proceedings were
being dragged at the instance of the applicants and their attempt
was to cover up the deficiencies in their case. A reading of the
impugned order would reveal that instead of analysing the legal and
factual aspects of the request for reopening evidence, the Tribunal
crossed all limits of judicial sobriety by making sarcastic comments
attributed even to the dead body of the deceased. Without
discussing the merits of the evidence adduced by the applicants on
the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal delved upon
unwarranted hypothesis and dismissed the Original Application as
such. A perusal of the case records would reveal that the case got
procrastinated not due to any act of the appellants, but solely due
to the absence of sitting of the Tribunal on most of the posting
dates. The order passed by the Tribunal in the above regard sans
2024:KER:84918
legal sanctity, and hence it has to be set aside to meet the ends of
justice.
In the result, the appeal stands allowed as follows :
(i) The order dated 12.10.2017 of the Ernakulam Bench
of Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A.No.54 of 2015 is set
aside.
(ii) I.A.No.11 of 2017 filed by the appellants stands
allowed, and the case is remanded back to the Tribunal
for fresh disposal after affording opportunity to the
applicants (appellants) to adduce further evidence in
support of their claim.
(iii) The Tribunal shall pass a reasoned order after
discussing the pleadings and evidence adduced by the
parties.
(iv) Since the accident involved in this case took place in
the year 2014, the Tribunal shall make every effort to
dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, but
without compromising on the merits of the case.
(sd/-)
G.GIRISH, JUDGE
ded
