Raju @Premi Lal v. Union of India

1. By this first appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant impugns the order dated 8.11.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal set aside its original judgment dated 29.7.2011 by which compensation was awarded to the deceased Sh. Raju. The compensation award has been set aside only on the ground that at the stage of final arguments, the original claimant Sh. Raju had expired but his legal heirs were not brought on record 2014:DHC:354 and therefore, the award of compensation dated 29.7.2011 has to be set aside.

2. I may note that Supreme Court in the case of A.A.Haja Muniuddian Vs. Indian Railways (1992) 4 SCC 736 has referred to the fact that the CPC does not apply to proceedings under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. In fact, this is so clearly mentioned in sub-Sections 1 and 2 of Section 18 of the Act. Sub-Section 2 of Section 18 makes it clear that the Tribunal can regulate its own procedure. Therefore, there is no automatic abatement in law once the provisions of abatement as contained in CPC do not apply. There is also no prejudice to either of the parties by bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in not treating the original judgment dated 29.7.2011 to have been validly passed because the case was at the stage of final arguments and no further action was required to be taken by any of the parties.

3. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.11.2012 is set aside and the original compensation award decision dated 29.7.2011 is restored. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

4. It is clarified that the compensation which is awarded will be apportioned between the legal representatives of the deceased Raju and for which purpose, necessary documentation will be filed before the Tribunal.

JANUARY 21, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib