Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
C.V. Sirpurkar, J.
Kujmati (Smt.) v. Union of India
Miscellaneous Appeal No.3108 of 2009 (Jabalpur) : against the award passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal; Decided on 6.11.2015.
Held : In aforesaid view of the matter, section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application to an appeal under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the High Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal beyond the stipulated period of limitation of 90 days regardless of the fact that the appellant had sufficient cause for such delay.
The Court is also in agreement with the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent that even on merits appellant has no case because Railway Claims Tribunal has also passed an award in the sum of Rs. 4 lacs for the death of son of the appellant in a railway accident. section 3(1) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, ordains in clear terms that the amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries, shall be as specified in the Schedule. Part-I of the Schedule appended to aforesaid Rules, prescribes the amount of compensation as Rs.4 lacs, which has already been awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Thus, even on merits the appellant has no case. (2008)3 SCC 70, (2009)15 SCC 183, (2003)8 SCC 431, (2010)5 SCC 23 and (1991)4 SCC 333 referred to. (2009)5 SCC 791 and (1974)2 SCC 133 followed.
ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 5 && jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 && /kkjk 23] 23¼1½] 23¼3½] 17¼2½] 16] 22] 15 rFkk 2 && jsy nq?kZVuk rFkk vfiz; ?kVuk ¼izfrdj½ fu;e] 1990 && fu-3¼1½ && /kkjk 5 dk ykxw gksuk && jsy nkok vf/kdj.k }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr && vf/kfu.kZ; esa o`f} ds fy, vihy && vihy izLrqr djus esa 319 fnol dk foyac && vf/kfu;e] 1987 Lo;a ,d iw.kZ lafgrk gS && bl rF; dks ns[krs gq, ,slk vkosnu foof{kr :i ls vioftZr le>k x;k && fu;e] 1990 dk fu;e 3¼1½ vknss'k djrk gS fd e`R;q ds ckjs esa lans; izfrdj dh jde vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa #-4 yk[k ds :i esa fofgr gS && tks fd vf/kdj.k }kjk igys&gh vf/kfu.khZr dj fn;k x;k & /kkjk 5 vihy esa ykxw ugha && mPp U;k;ky; dks ifjlhek dh fu;r vof/k ls ijs vihy xzg.k djus ds fy, vf/kdkfjrk ugha gS && vihykFkhZ dk xq.kkxq.k ij Hkh dksbZ ekeyk ugha && foyac dh ekQh ds fy, vkosnu [kkfjt && vihy [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoZdfFkr ekeys dks ns[krs gq, ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 jsy nkok vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 dh /kkjk 23 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu vihy esa ykxw ugha rFkk mPp U;k;ky; dks ifjlhek dh 90 fnol dh fu;r vofèk ls ijs ,slh vihy xzg.k djus ds fy, vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA bl rF; ij /;ku fn, fcuk fd vihykFkhZ ds ikl ,sls foyac ds fy, i;kZIr dkj.k FkkA
U;k;ky; izR;FkhZ ds fo}ku dkmUlsy ds rdZ ls Hkh lger gS fd xq.kkxq.k ij Hkh vihykFkhZ dk ekeyk ugha curk] D;ksafd jsy nkok vf/kdj.k Hkh ,d jsy nq?kZVuk esa vihykFkhZ ds iq= dh e`R;q ds fy, #-4 yk[k dh jde dk vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr dj pqdk gSA jsy nq?kZVuk rFkk vfiz; ?kVuk ¼izfrdj½ fu;e] 1990 dk fu-3¼1½ Li"V 'kCnksa esa vkns'k djrk gS fd e`R;q ;k {kfr;ksa ds ckjs esa lans; izfrdj dh jde gksxh tSlh fd vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V gSA iwoZdfFkr fu;eksa ls lalyXu vuqlwph dk Hkkx 1 izfrdj dh jde 4 yk[k ds :i esa fofgr djrk gS tks fd jsy nkok vf/kdj.k }kjk igys&gh vf/kfu.khZr fd;k tk pqdk gSA bl izdkj] xq.kkxq.k ij Hkh vihykFkhZ dk ekeyk ugha curkA ¼2008½ 3 ,l lh lh 70] ¼2009½ 15 ,l lh lh 183] ¼2003½ 8 ,l lh lh 431] ¼2010½ 5 ,l lh lh 23 rFkk ¼1991½ 4 ,l lh lh 333 fufnZ"VA ¼2009½ 5 ,l lh lh 791 rFkk ¼1974½ 2 ,l lh lh 133 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15½
1. Heard on I.A.No.8460/2009 under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 319 days in filing this miscellaneous appeal.
2. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that appellant Kujmati is widow of deceased Raghuwar who had died in a train accident while travelling from Allahabad to Chapa in Sarnath Express on 15.1.2004. The Railway Claims Tribunal Bhopal Bench, had allowed the claim under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to in the order as “the Act”); and had awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the quantum of the award, this miscellaneous appeal under section 23 of the Act, has been preferred.
3. It has been stated that as the appellant was not satisfied by the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 29.8.2008, shall handed over the copy of the award for necessary action to her counsel Shri Manishanker Sahu of Raigarh; however, since the formalities regarding vakalatnama and affidavit could not be completed by the appellant, the appeal could not be preferred within the stipulated period. Subsequently, the copy of the award got misplaced in the office of the advocate. Later on 25.7.2009, she learnt that for want of formalities regarding vakalatnama and affidavit, the appeal could not be filed. So, she along with her counsel visited the counsel at Jabalpur and ultimately the appeal was filed on 31.7.2009. The miscellaneous appeal was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, supported by affidavit of the appellant. Thus, the delay of 319 days was bona fide and deserves to be condoned.
4. The respondent has opposed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, by filing a written reply mainly on two counts. Firstly, it has been submitted that as per sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act, every appeal under section 23 has to be preferred within a period of 90 days from the date of the order appealed against. Placing reliance upon the judgments rendered by the apex Court in the cases of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others [(2008)3 SCC 70], Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited and another [(2009)5 SCC 791], Chaudharana Steels Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad [(2009)15 SCC 183], Prakash H. Jain v. Marie Fernandes [(2003)8 SCC 431], Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and others [(2010)5 SCC 23], and Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Company Limited and others [(1991)4 SCC 333], it has been argued that the Act being a special law, provisions of sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act, are not applicable and High Court has no jurisdiction to extend the period of Limitation prescribed by section 23(3) of the Act. Secondly, taking recourse to Part I of the “Schedule” appended to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, it has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the maximum amount which may be awarded for death of a person in a Railway accident is Rs.4,00,000/-, which has already been awarded by the Tribunal; as such, the Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the amount any further. Thus, the appellant has no case on merits either; therefore, it has been prayed that the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act as also the miscellaneous appeal, be dismissed.
5. This Court shall first consider as to whether or not section 5 of the Limitation Act can be pressed into service for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing an appeal under section under section 23 (1) of the Act?
6. In this regard learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the cases relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant relate to Central Excise Act, 1994, Electricity Act, 2003 Representation of People Act, 1951 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The principles enunciated in aforesaid cases would not be a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
