(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI)
1. Though these appeals arise out of two different orders dated 19.06.2006 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, but since the facts are common in all the appeals, we have heard and decided these appeals by this common judgment and order. Facts, as could be noted from the record, are as under:
2. Appellant of First Appeal No.1722/07 and First Appeal No.1723/07 Shri Liyakatali Bachasardar Maniyar and appellant of First Appeal No.1720/07 and First Appeal No.1721/07 Smt.Gulshanbhanu Liyakatali Maniar are husband and wife. Each of them filed two claim petitions before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming different amounts as compensation for having sustained injuries in a train accident which happened on 21.4.2005. It is their common case before the Claims Tribunal that they were travelling in Train No.9168 Up Varanasi-Ahmedabad Sabarmati Express on 21.4.2005. The said train collided with Up JNPT Goods Train at Samlaya Railway Station. In the said accident, they sustained injuries which made them entitled to file claim petition under section 124 of the Railway Act, 1989. It appears that two different advocates took their claim cases and filed two different petitions for each of them. Claim Case No.OA 0500131 was filed by advocate Shri M.B.Shah for and on behalf of appellant in Appeal No.1722/07 claiming compensation of Rs.2 lacs. The said claim petition was filed before the Tribunal on 29.7.2005. Another claim petition being OA 0500195 was filed by this very appellant in First Appeal No.1723/07 through another advocate Shri N.R.Kapade claiming compensation of Rs.80,000/-. The said claim petition was filed on 24.11.2005.
3. Similarly, for and on behalf of the appellant of First Appeal No.1720 of 2007 and First Appeal No.1721 of 2007, claim case No. OA 0500132 claiming compensation of Rs.2 lacs was filed. The said claim petition was filed on 29.7.2005 by Shri M.B.Shah. For this very appellant, another claim petition was filed by another advocate claiming compensation of Rs.40,000/- on 24.11.2005. It appears that the appellants are illiterates and were not having requisite knowledge about filing of claim petitions and they were guided as per the advise of their advocates. It also appears that the appellants, as might have been asked by their advocates, unknowingly allowed the advocates to present different claim petitions claiming compensation. The Claims Tribunal, however, did not decide the petitions on merits and dealt with the petitions on alleged fraudulent conduct of the advocates. The Claims Tribunal mainly proceeded against the conduct of the advocates. The claim petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed with costs. The Claims Tribunal has taken the conduct of the advocates to be the ground to impose cost on the appellants though it does not appear from the order of the Claims Tribunal that the Claims Tribunal has recorded any finding about the fraudulent act on the part of the appellants.
4. Though we find that two different advocates had filed two different claim petitions claiming compensation for each of the appellants, we do not find any justification for the Claims Tribunal to dismiss the claim petitions without deciding the same on merits simply because the Claims Tribunal was of the view that those two advocates did not conduct in the manner in which they were expected to.
5. It appears that these appeals were earlier dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, they were restored to file.
6. Today when these appeals are taken up for hearing, none has appeared for the respondent. Learned advocate for the appellants Shri V.M.Pathan has submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants were travelling in Train No.9168 Up Varanasi-Ahmedabad Sabarmati Express on 21.4.2004 and they sustained injuries because of the accident happened with the said train. He submitted that it may be that the appellants were misguided by two different advocates for filing different claim petitions, but the fact remains that the appellants had sustained injuries and they were entitled to claim compensation under section 124 of the Railway Act, 1989. He further submitted that simply because two different claim petitions were filed by each of the appellants, that would be no reason for the Claims Tribunal to dismiss the claim petitions especially when the appellants were not found to have either misrepresented or misled the Tribunal or indulged into any fraudulent act. He, therefore, submitted that the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken up one of the claim petitions of each of the appellants for deciding the same on merits. He submitted that the appellants in their first claim petitions claimed Rs.2 lacs each towards compensation. Since the first claim petition was in all respects found in order, the same claim petition was required to be taken up for decision on merits. He, therefore, urged that since the Claims Tribunal has not decided any of the claim petitions on merits, the Claims Tribunal is required to be directed to decide first two claims petitions of the appellants on merits. For this purpose, he requests that the order passed by the Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petitions without deciding the same on merits is required to be reversed and the claims petitions are required to be remanded to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the same on merits.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the appellants were not at fault for filing different claim petitions. One can understand if one advocate filed two claim petitions for each of the appellants. In the case on hand, two different advocates had taken up the case of the appellants and filed two different claim petitions. In view of this position, we do not see any reason to doubt the conduct of the appellants in filing two different claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal. We find that instead of dismissing the claim petitions filed by the appellants, the Claims Tribunal ought to have decided the claim petitions on its own merits. We are of the view that the claim of the appellants in respect of the injuries sustained by them in the railway accident is required to be adjudicated on its own merits. We are therefore inclined to remand the claim petitions to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the same on their own merits.
8. Since there are two different claim petitions filed by both the appellants, we deem it proper to direct the Tribunal to consider the first claim petition of each of the appellants wherein claim of Rs.2 lacs is made by them. So far as the second set of claim petitions are concerned wherein the appellants have claimed compensation of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively, the same shall be treated as withdrawn by the appellants and the proceedings in respect of the said claim petitions shall stand terminated.
9. The appeals are thus partly allowed. The orders dated 19.6.2006 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench under challenge in these appeals are quashed and set aside in so far as it has dismissed claims petitions and imposed cost on the appellants are concerned. The Claim Petition OA 0500131 filed by the appellant of First Appeal No.1722/07 and 1723/07 claiming compensation of Rs.2 lacs and claim petition OA 0500132 filed by the appellant of First Appeal Nos.1720/07 and 1721/07 claiming compensation of Rs.2 lacs are remanded to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the same on merits after giving full opportunity to the appellants to prove their claim.
10. The Tribunal is directed to decide and dispose of the claim petitions preferably within a period of four months from the receipt of this order.
Direct service is permitted.
(Akil Kureshi J.) (C.L.Soni, J.) (vjn) Top