Mr. Shaikh Mahemood & Ors. vs Union Of India

By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, dated 18.10.2016 in Claim Application No. M.A./NGP/0023/2016, whereby the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellants before the Tribunal was rejected.

The appellants, who approached before this court by way of present appeal, stated that before the Claim Tribunal in their application for condonation of delay has specifically stated that though the accident was occurred on 08.07.2013, they could not get the police papers from Shegaon Railway Police. It is their case that when they repeatedly visited the Railway Police, it was told to them that Investigation Officer namely, Khairkar was died during the investigation and, therefore, investigation of the case was not completed and hence they are not in a position to supply the police case papers to the appellants. The appellants have specifically stated that they received all the police papers on 10.12.2015 and immediately after the receipt of the same, they have instructed the Advocate to file the application and accordingly on 19.04.2016 the Claim Application along with application for condonation of delay was filed before the Claim Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the respondent-railway administration has strongly opposed the application by stating that there is a specific time limit is provided under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act to file the application. However, there was an inordinate delay of one year, nine months and eleven days in filing the application. The learned Tribunal has rightly recorded the reasons for rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, no interference of this court is called for in the present matter.

The appellants, who approached before this court, have came with a specific submission that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2020 in the present matter.

It is pointed out that after the occurrence of untoward incident, the investigation is required to be conducted by the Station Superintendent on receipt of information about such incident. He has to first inform to the Police as well as the Railway Protection Force to conduct investigation and submit their report in the matter. As per Rule 7 of Rule 2020, the police are required to immediately initiate investigation and prepare the report in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is now called as BNNS Act. After preparation of detailed accident report, they are required to submit a copy of the same to the Divisional Security Commissioner/Senior DSC for onward submission to Divisional Railway Manager.

As per Rule 9 of the Rule 2020, the police on completion of the investigation is also required to submit the report to the Magistrate as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (BNNS Act). After completing the said investigation by police as well as Railway Protection Force, as contemplated under Rules 7 and 9, the authorities are required to decide, whether the investigation was properly conducted or not and if same is not properly conducted, the Divisional Railway Manager, who believes that some more enquiry is required in the matter can also refer the same back to the investigation officer of the force along with his observation for further investigation.

In the light of this Rule, it is the submission of the applicant that unless this investigation is completed, he was not in a position to file the proceeding before the Railway Tribunal. However, this procedure which is provided under Rule 2020 was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal in the matter.

It is the submission of the applicant, it was the duty of the respondent-railway administration to make aware the learned Tribunal about status of enquiry contemplated under Rule 2020, so that learned Tribunal could have considered the issue of condonation of delay positively. But the respondent-railway administration, instead of submitting the correct factual position, has raised the objection on the application for condonation of delay.

In the light of the provisions of Rule 2020, it is clear that as the investigation is required to be done in the manner prescribed and in the present case admittedly the investigation officer was died during the investigation, therefore, investigation was prolonged and consequently the delay was caused in filing the application before Railway Tribunal. But Railway Tribunal did not consider this material fact, while deciding the application for condonation of delay.

In the present matter, the railway administration did not deny the fact that the investigation officer namely Khairkar was died during the investigation and, therefore, the investigation of the case was not completed within a prescribed time period. In my considered opinion, as the appellants received the police case papers on 10.12.2015 and, thereafter, appellants have filed the application for compensation was required to be considered positively by the Railway Tribunal.

In the light of the above observations, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal being bad in law is liable to be quashed and set aside and accordingly the following order is passed in the matter.