The court emphasized the need for efficient payment of compensation and suggested a litigation policy for the Railways.

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The journey from Meerut to Ludhiana undertaken by the Plaintiff has proved to be a very long one. An unfortunate incident that occurred on 20th October, 1987 i.e. three decades ago is the subject matter of the present appeal. It has been over 30 years and the Plaintiff has been running from pillar to post, seeking compensation, after having had his left leg amputated in a train accident.

2. The Respondent/Plaintiff, Mr. Tilak Raj Singh (hereinafter ‘Plaintiff’) boarded a II general class compartment of the Frontier Mail from Meerut Cantt. to Ludhiana (hereinafter, ‘train’). When the train reached Muzaffarnagar, about 5 or 6 bogies (viz., compartments) of the train did not reach up, till the platform. At the Muzaffarnagar station, the Plaintiff, who was standing at the right hand exit with other passengers, had to give way and alight from the compartment in order to enable ingress and egress of passengers. While the passengers were alighting from the train, suddenly the train moved and the Plaintiff and the other passengers, who were on the platform, tried to board the train. Due to the sudden and jerky movement of the train, the Plaintiff along with other passengers fell and he got entangled between the wheels of the train and was dragged for a long distance. No first aid was given to the Plaintiff, who was sent to the civil hospital in Muzaffarnagar on a rickshaw. Due to loss of blood and inadequate facilities there, he developed an infection and was, thereafter shifted to Safdarjung hospital. The condition of the Plaintiff became extremely critical and he was operated upon thrice at Safdarjung hospital. The infection continued to persist and finally he got his fifth operation done from an orthopaedic surgeon in a nursing home at Meerut. The Plaintiff’s left leg had to be amputated. The Plaintiff was severely injured due to the accident. He had to give up sports and though he was a law student studying at Meerut, he could not pursue his studies.

3. It is the Plaintiff’s case that there were several deficiencies, and in fact, negligence by the railways which led to such a severe consequence of loss of a leg. He, accordingly, filed a suit in the District Court at Meerut on 3rd September, 1990 seeking damages/compensation. The railways raised an issue of jurisdiction and, after a period of 12 years, on 14th January, 2002, the plaint was returned by the Civil Court, Meerut to be filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction.

4. The Plaintiff then, upon legal advice, filed an application claiming compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter ‘RCT’), Ghaziabad on 3rd August, 2005. Unfortunately for the Plaintiff, on 23rd July, 2008, the RCT held that the case is liable to be tried only by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not by the Claims Tribunal as constituted under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter, ‘Railways Act’). The reasoning given by the RCT was that the incident took place prior to the constitution of the Tribunal under the Railways Act. The suit was then shuttled back to the District Judge, Meerut who declined to accept the case saying that the RCT was not competent to transfer the case to it.

5. Thereafter, the present suit came to be filed on 1st October, 2008 before the original side of the Delhi High Court. The entire original record was summoned from the RCT. Arguments were heard on the question of limitation. On 20th September, 2010, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the suit is barred by limitation and the suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. This judgement was challenged in appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that the period during which the suit remained pending before the Civil Judge, Meerut and the RCT ought to be excluded in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The suit, thereafter,