Motor Accident Claims Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over compensation claims against Railways, directing affected parties to pursue claims in the Railway Claims Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Member, MACT in connection with MAC Case No. 57/2010 awarding Rs.1,18,100/- (Rupees One Lac Eighteen Thousand and One Hundred) as compensation to the claimant Md. Kasem Ali and Must. Surbhan Khatun and directing the appellants to pay the amount to the claimant with the interest @ 8% from the date of adducing evidence by the claimant till payment, in full.

2. The claimants are arrayed as respondents in this case and will hereinafter be referred to as respondents. The appellants are 1. Union of India (Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati), 2. Additional Chief Engineer, N.F. Railway, Bhalukdubi, Goalpara and 3. Executive Engineer, N.F. Railway, Bhalukdubi, who were the original respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in original MAC Case No. 57/2010, brought up by the claimants/respondents herein. The respondent No. 1 and his wife, respondent No. 2 have prayed for compensation on account of death of their son Rayjuddin Ahmed @ Azizuddin @ Raijuddin, who died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 29.04.2006 at about 7.30 PM at Railway level crossing which was unmanned, being No. 176, between Krishnai and Goalpara Town stations. The incident was caused by Train No. 5642 DN Jhajha Express and Truck No. WB-25/0487. The victim (also referred to as the deceased) was the driver of the aforementioned truck who died on the following day of the accident. The registration number of the truck was WB-25/0487 and was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bongaigaon Division, under the Policy No. 313306 and was valid up-to 04.12.2006. The opposite party No. 2 in the original MAC Case No. 57/2010 is Tapesh Aich @ Tapan Aich, who is the owner of the truck.

3. All the opposite parties except the insurer did not contest the proceeding and the case proceeded ex-parte against them. At the time of the incident, the deceased victim was 23 years old and was a regular employee under the opposite party No. 2 and used to earn a sum of Rs.3,300/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Three Hundred) per month. The Insurer i.e. the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company contested the proceedings and filed written statement. The maintainability of the proceeding was challenged as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition in an accident case pertaining to accident involving the Railways. Contributory negligence was also attributed to the driver of the truck through the written statement.

4. The Railways have challenged the appeal on the ground that the decision was patently illegal as the decision was passed beyond the jurisdiction by the learned Tribunal, without according an opportunity to the Railways to contest the proceeding. The ex-parte judgment was erroneously passed.

5. It is contended that the compensation was awarded in violation of Section 13 (1-A), 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 inasmuch Section 161 of the Railways Act, 1989, was not appreciated. It has been admitted by the learned Tribunal that the accident is a result of contributory negligence as the driver’s contribution to the accident has been affirmed by the Tribunal by observing that the railway crossing was unmanned.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant laid stress in her argument that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration Section 110 B of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1939, which makes it c