IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR M.F.A. NO.9996 OF 2018 (RCT) BETWEEN:
THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY HUBLI – 580 020 (BY SMT. KAVITHA H.C., ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT AND:
SHRI. C. SUBRAMANI S/O. LATE CHINAPPAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCCUPATION: COOLIE RESIDING AT NO.78 NEW WEST GILBERTS BANGARPET, MARIKUPPAM KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 119 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.G. SHANTHARAJA, ADVOCATE) *** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23 (1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, 1987 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2018, IN O.A NO.II U 98/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH AT BENGALURU, WHEREBY COMPENSATION OF RS.8,00,000/- IS AWARDED TO THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the respondent.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission with the consent of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3. This is an appeal preferred by the respondent, aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19th June 2018 passed in OA II U 98/2017 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) at Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
4. The appellant submits that one Sri Prasanna Kumar S/o C.Subramani was involved in a train accident and due to the said accident he died on 10th February 2017. It is the case of the applicant / respondent that while waiting for the train to arrive, the deceased had crossed the railway track No.1 in a hasty manner and died due to fall into a drainage between the two tracks. It is the case of the appellant that as per Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, there are only four category of incidents which are termed as untoward incidents and the facts of this case do not fall within the said Section. It is the further case of the appellant that the Tribunal has considered ‘untoward incident’, which is erroneous as the definition of ‘untoward incident’ is inclusive and not exhaustive. Further, it is stated that the Tribunal erroneously held the incident to be an ‘accidental fall’ from the train when it is the case of trespass on the tracks. Hence, appellant challenged the judgment of the Tribunal.
5. The learned counsel for appellant submits that no opportunity was provided to the appellant before the Tribunal to cross examine the applicant. It is also the case of the appellant that no opportunity was provided to produce the documentary evidence on their behalf.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent submits that accident had occurred on 10.02.2017 and the accident was reported on 11.02.2017. The original application was filed on 25.04.2017 and the written statement was filed by the appellants on 09.10.2017 without DRM report. The learned counsel further submits as per the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules of 2003’), the conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Force as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 2003. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 2003 makes it clear that ‘the Officer of the Force shall complete the investigation within sixty days and submit a report to the authority specified under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2003’. He further submits that as per sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2003, ‘the Officer of the Force shall forward the report prepared under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 2003 to the Divisional Security Commissioner of the Force’. Further, he submits that sub- Rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2003, where ‘the Divisional Security Commissioner shall submit the report to Divisional Railway Manager within fifteen days of the receipt of report of investigation from the Officer of the force.’ Further, sub-Rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2003 says that ‘the investigation report along with acceptance of Divisional Railway Manager thereon shall be sent within fifteen days to the administrative in-charge of the Claim Office of the Zonal Railway where the incident has occurred.’ He further submits that as per sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2003, ‘the administrative in-charge of Claim Office of the Zonal Railway who has received the notice of claim for that particular incident shall arrange to collect the report from the claim office of Railway where the incident has occurred and submit the same to the concerned Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal along with the written statement.’ Therefore, the learned counsel vehemently contends that appellant is negligent and irresponsible in not filing the report within 90 days to be submitted before the Tribunal along with the written statement. In view of the fact that the documents have not been filed along with the DRM report within a period of 90 days, no material evidence is produced by the appellant and therefore, rightly the Tribunal has come to a conclusion without considering the DRM report and the documents of the appellant.
7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for respondent, it is necessary to ascertain whether the filing of the DRM report before the Tribunal is time fixed mandate under the law.
8. The provisions of the Rules mentioned in the Rules of 2003 are the Rules framed for conduct of investigation and to submit report by the Force within 60 days, in turn, the Force to submit the report to the Divisional Security Commissioner within fifteen days thereafter the Commissioner shall submit the report to the Divisional Railway Manager within fifteen days of the receipt of the report. Further, the DRM shall send the report along with acceptance to the administrative in charge of the Claim Office of the Zonal Railway, thereby all the aforesaid process shall be completed by a period of 90 days.
9. The Railway Tribunal is governed under Railway Act and Rules, it prescribes the procedure for filing of the application, limitation for accepting the application and the procedure of the Claims Tribunal in conducting the cases. Sub-Section (1) of Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act of 1987’), reads thus:
“(1) The Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Claims Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its enquiry.”
10. Sub-Section (3) of Section 18 the Act of 1987, reads thus:
“(3) The Claims Tribunal shall have, for the purpose of discharging in functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) .. .. ..;
(b) .. .. ..”
11. As per Section 15 (1) of the Railways Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules of 1989, filing of reply and other documents by the respondent, which reads thus:
‘(1) Each respondent may file his reply to the application and copies of the documents on or before the date of hearing.’ It is pertinent to note here that there is no prescription with regard to the limitation of time for filing of statement or acceptance of the DRM report to the Claims Tribunal. As stated earlier under Section 18 of the Act of 1987, it is clearly stated that the Claims Tribunal shall be guided by the principals of natural justice.
11. In the case on hand the appellant has not been able to file the DRM report and also submit their documents along with their written statement. Due to which the Tribunal has come down heavily on the appellant for non- filing of the DRM report within a period of 90 days, based on which the observations made in the written statement is brushed aside by the Tribunal and objections were also not taken into consideration. In view of the fact that the appellant has not cross examined the applicant before the Tribunal and no evidence has been lead on behalf of the appellant, the claim of the applicant has been accepted without considering the statement of objections.
12. Therefore, after giving my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant and the respondent and the provisions of the Act and Rules, the reasoning and findings of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the case has to be remanded to the Tribunal for consideration on all the aforesaid aspects afresh. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER (1) The order dated 19th June 2018 passed in No. OA II U 98/2017 by the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside;
(2) The case bearing No. OA II U 98/2017 is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration;
(3) The appellant is given an opportunity to file DRM report and the documents if any and is also permitted to cross examine the applicant and lead evidence in support of their case;
(4) Since the accident is of the year 2017, the Tribunal is directed to conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order;
(5) It is needless to mention here that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also merit of the case;
(6) The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE VK