Harjian Madhu,S.Madhu v. Union Of India
[ 3258 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 504 OF 2018 Appeal Under Section 23 of Railway Tribunal Act against the order in O.A.ll(U) No. 74 of 2014, dated 09.10.2017 on the file of the Court of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. Between:
HARJIAN MADHU@S.MADHU, S/o. Harjian Essu, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Coolie, Rl/o. H.No.22l16,Apparala village, Kothakata ltr'landal, Mahabubnagar District, Pin No.590 321 .
...APPELLANT/APPLICANT AND UNION OF lNDIA, rep. By its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. N.S. GEETHA MADHURI, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: B. LAXMI PRASUNA (SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT) The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No,5O4 OF 2018 ORDER:
Aggrieved by the Order dated 09-10-20L7 in O.A (II) (U) No.74 of 20L4 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, by which his application for compensation was dismissed, the applicant in the said OA preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 2.
According to the grounds urged by the appellant in the present appeal, the main grievance of the applicant is that the Tribunal below adopted very narrow minded approach, in spite of the fact that the Act is beneficial piece of legislation. Thereby he sought for setting aside the Order and sought for an opportunity.
3.
According to the Judgment filed along with the appeal and as per other record, it shows that O.A (II) (U) No. 74 of 2Ol4 has been filed by the applicant herein for compensation on account of sustaining injuries in an untoward incident.
4.
The said petition was filed with an allegation that the appellant with a view to attend contract Iabour work along with other three fellow coolies, went to Nanded railway station, rn the evening hours of 24-06-2011, purchased a group passenger train journey ticket bearing No.65632622 from Nanded to Mudkhed and boarded Train No.57558 Nanded-Nizamabad passenger, while travelling the applicant due to heavy rush of passengers, accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at Mudkhed railway station in between platform and he sustained head injury, severe crushed cut to his right hand and separated below the fore-arm by the wheels of the said running train and other multiple injuries due to speed and sudden jerks of train. 5.
The respondent opposed the claim and filed written statement denying the material averments of the petition and put the applicants to strict proof of their case. 6.
On the basis of the rival contentions, issues have been framed and matter was adjourned from time to time, for trial. However, on 09-10-2017 the appllcation of the appellant herein was dismissed in view of the non-prosecution of the case.
-t 7.
It appears from the record that a memo was filed by the learned counsel for the applicant to refer the matter to Lokadalath and the same memo was filed without any consent of the respondent. Therefore, the memo was not accepted and in view of the circular from the Registrar, Railway Claims Tribunal, New Delhi vide Circular No.RCT/DLI/ Secunderabad/96 dated 26.12.2005 and in view of Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, l9B7 and also basing on ludgment of High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.36935 of 20001, the application of the applicant was dismissed vide separate Order.
B. The appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the said Order and the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no proper opportunity was given to the appellant herein to submit his case before the Tribunal. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant and other persons who filed similar applications filed a memo before the Tribunal with a request to refer the matter before Lokadalath and it was bonafide request and therefore sought for an opportunity to contest their claim. ' nlR 200t Kamataka 504
,t 9.
As could be seen from the Order challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, it shows that though the matter was adjourned from time to time for number of adjournments, the appellant herein did not choose to produce any evidence.
10. Learned counsel representing the respondent herein submitted that there are no bonafides in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and that the application itself is a fake claim and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. It may be true that the appellant failed to adduce evidence inspite of number of adjournments but the application cannot be decided without giving any opportunity. The appellant is entitled to fair chance of producing evidence and proving his claim. Therefore, it is a fit case for remanding the matter to the Tribunal below, with a specific direction to dispose the same on merits by giving opportunity to both parties.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by remanding the matter to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, and in O.A (II) (U) No. 74 of 2OL4 is restored. The Railway Claims Tribunal,
Secunderabad Bench is directed to dispose of the above OA by giving reasonable opportunity to both parties, for adducing evidence and submitting their respective arguments. The Tribunal shall dispose of the OA within 6 (Six) months from the date of receipt of records.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
SD/- B.S.CHIRANJEEVI DEPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (with records)
2. One CC to Ms. N.S. GEETHA MADHURI, Advocate tOpUCl
3. One CC to Ms. B. LAXMI PRASUNA (SC FOR CENTRAL GOW COUNSEL), Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD Copies k BN \
HIGH COURT DATED:0210912022
ORDER
CMA.No.504 of 2018 C) ,J 13 JAil MA Z, .6'i 1tl ALLOWING AND REMANDING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS.