Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur, P.O. & P.S. Hazipur, District-Vaishali (Bihar) - Petitioner
Versus
Dashrath Darve son of Rakshu Darve & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.2158 of 2017
Decided On : 26-06-2019
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 18 - Constitution of India - Article 226 – Claim of compensation – Jurisdiction – Tenant - Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent wherein stand has been taken that in spite of numerous opportunities given to railway authority to file written statement as also to file DRMs report no diligence was shown to comply with said order while as per provision provided under Section 18 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which lays down the procedure and powers of claims tribunal, Section 18 provides that claims tribunal shall have for purposes of discharging its functions under this Act same powers as are vested in a civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and has power to summon and enforce attendance of any person and examine him on oath - Section 27 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against Central Government or against the Chairman Vice-Chairman or other Member or any other person authorized by Chairman Vice-Chairman or other Member for anything which is done in good faith – Held, Tribunal has been constraint to pass an order as would be evident from order since the respondent has failed to file DRMs report therefore while passing such order Tribunal has not exceeded his jurisdiction in view of scope intent and object of constituting the Claims Tribunal which is for speedy and proper adjudication of the issues but it is due to the respondents attitude since the DRMs report has not been produced, delay was caused therefore such order has been passed - As has been referred hereinabove that Railway Claims Tribunal has been constituted for expeditious adjudication of the claim quantum of compensation if the adjudication is in of claimant - Adjudication can go either way i.e., either in the side of the Railway authorities or in the side of claimant - If adjudication will go in of railway authorities there will be no question of determination of quantum but if it will go in of claimant then question of determination of quantum of compensation would arise and that can only be quantified by Tribunal by considering reports in order to look into the nature of injury extent of injury, negligence part which is the vital part of matter in casting liability and these facts can only be gathered from the report prepared by the railway authorities. Otherwise also if report which has been prepared by railway authorities needs to be appreciated by the Railway Tribunal by providing the copy of same upon claimant or its dependent who are before Claims Tribunal meaning thereby report or any kind of document which has got bearing needs to be produced before Tribunal and if the Railway Claims Tribunal Act has been enactment railway authorities cannot suppose to act contrary to the spirit of Act and if document has not been produced as case herein, and if in such circumstances Tribunal has passed an order for personal appearance same cannot be said to be in excess of jurisdiction rather it will be said to be for the purpose of proper adjudication of the issues in quantifying compensation as case may be – Petition dismissed
1. This Court had issued notice upon the private respondent, respondent No.1 but as yet the service is not complete.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted upon the Court for disposal of the writ petition, therefore, the matter has been taken up for hearing and is being disposed of.
3. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 10.04.2017 passed in O.A. No.37 of 2016 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench as well as the consequential notice dated 12.04.2017 issued by the Additional Registrar, Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench directing the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur to appear in person before the learned Tribunal on 25.04.2017 and to explain as to why the DRM's report has not been filed.
4. The aforesaid order has been challenged on the ground that in the similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Patna High Court has passed judgments/orders annexed as Annexure-3, 4, 5 & 6 to the writ petition.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 wherein the stand has been taken that in spite of the numerous opportunities given to the railway authority to file written statement as also to file DRM's report, no diligence was shown to comply with the said order while as per the provision provided under Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which lays down the procedure and powers of claims tribunal, Section 18(3)(a) provides that the claims tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and has power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him on oath.
Section 27 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or against the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Member, or any other person authorized by the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Member for anything which is done in good faith.
6. It has further been stated therein that after passing of various orders, several opportunities have been given to the Railway, initially to file written statement and thereafter, to record evidence as well as filing of DRM's report.
7. It is statutory obligation of the railways that Rule 13 of Rules, 2003 which provides that the DRM's report is to be filed along with the written statement for its proper adjudication.
8. It has further been stated that by directing the railway authorities to bring on record the DRM's report, no stigma will be caused upon the railway authority rather it is only for the purpose of proper adjudication of the issues, and therefore, when there is latches on the part of the railway authorities, a direction has been passed by the Tribunal for proper adjudication of the issues so that the purpose for which the railway Tribunal has been constituted as per the enactment of the Central Act would be achieved.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going across the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the counter affidavit, the factual aspect which is not in dispute in this case is that a claim has been raised before the Railway Claims Tribunal.
10. The notices have been issued to the railway authorities but as it transpires from the record that the DRM's report which was required to be filed along with the written statement has not been filed as such the appropriate direction has been issued by the Tribunal asking the railway authorities to bring on record the DRM's report but in spite of ample opportunities granted by the Tribunal, no such report has been brought on record, therefore, the Tribunal in the ends of justice has passed an order on 10.04.2017 by issuing summons plus appearance of the A.D.R.M., Danapur Division, Eastern Railway on 25.04.2017 to explain as to why the DRM's report has not been filed.
11. The petitioner has tried to i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
