Honble KOKJE, J. – These cases arise out of an unfortunate accident which took place in the town of Phalodi because of derailment of a goods train which fell down on a public road killing two persons and injuring some others. The heirs and successors of the deceased as also the injured persons themselves, filed claim applications before the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short the ``Tribunal hereinaf- ter). On preliminary objections being raised by the Railway Administration, the Tribunal went into the question as to whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the claim applications and held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. These Misc, Appeals have been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ``the Act hereinafter) against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal.

(2) The learned counsel for the appellants heavily relied on a decision of Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Vijayasankar. Vs. Union of India (1) and contended that in such matters law should be liberally interpreted in favour of the claimants and it should be held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claims.

(3) I have heard the learned counsel and carefully gone through the decision cited by him and the impugned order.

(4) Section 13 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. It reads as under:

``13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal. - (1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from theappointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable imme- diately 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;

(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 82A 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.

(1a) 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 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder.)

(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 inquir- ing into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act.

(5) It will be clear from the plain language of the Section that the jurisdiction of the Civil courts was given from the appointed day to the Tribunals in respect of two areas (i) relating to the responsibility of Railway Administration as carries un- der Chapter VII of the Railways Act and (ii) in respect of the claims for refund of fares and freight etc.

(6) Claims in respect of responsibility as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect to which Tribunals were given jurisdiction were classified in two categories:(i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non- delivery of animals or goods entrused to a railway administration for carriage by railway; and (ii) compensation payable under section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 82A of the Railways Act corresponds to the Section 123 and 124 of the new Railways Act, 1989.By amendment in the year 1994 sub-section (1A) was added to Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and claims in respect of liablility under Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989 were also mad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document