Sha Champalal Jawaharlal vs Union Of India (UOI)

H.R. Panwar, J.—This misc. appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 06.05.1998 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ''the Tribunal'' herein after), whereby the application filed by the appellant was partly allowed.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rajasthan Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (for short ''the Rules of 1989'' herein after).

Learned Counsel has contended that Rule 21 of the Rules of 1989 provides framing and determination of issue. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 21 provides that after considering the reply, the Tribunal shall ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues upon which the right decision of the case appears to it to depend.

In the instant case, the Tribunal failed to frame issue or determine the point for determination and, therefore, on this point alone the order impugned deserves to be set-aside.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Union submits that claim of the appellant has been decided on merit but the fact remains that Tribunal failed to frame issue or point for determination and this being a technical lacuna.

In my view, it cannot be said that non-framing of the issue or point for determination is technical lacuna. In the instant case, the appellant made a claim seeking compensation of Rs. 36,287.63 but the claim of the appellant has been denied by the respondent and the respondent joined issue on various material point, thus, when the parties are at variance on the material proposition of fact as also of law then it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1989 and in absence of framing and determining the issue when the parties are at variance on material proposition of fact or of law, the order impugned cannot sustain and liable to be set-aside and the matter deserves to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision by following the relevant provisions of the rules.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned dated 06.05.1998 passed by the Tribunal is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to frame issue/point for determination and the parties be allowed to lead evidence on the issue so framed and thereafter pass fresh order.