Sumanbai Wd/o Dattaramji Rajegore vs Union Of India

. Heard Mr. R. G. Bagul, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. N. G. Chaubey, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

By way of present Appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and Award dated 6/1/2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/NGP/30/2019, whereby the Claim Application filed by the Appellant/Claimant was dismissed by the Tribunal.

It is the submission of the present Appellant that the learned Tribunal, while deciding the Appeal, has not adhered the specific provisions under the Indian Railways Act, 1989, and more particularly, the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.

According to the Appellant, specific procedure is incorporated by the Legislature for deciding the Claim Petitions by the Railway Claims Tribunal. However, the Railway Claims Tribunal, without adhering to the said Act and Rules, decided the Claim Application, and therefore, seeks indulgence in the matter.

The learned Counsel for Respondent/Railway Administration states that as per the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the Tribunal and the Tribunal has to decide the proceeding only by applying principles of natural justice and the Tribunal has power to regulate its own procedure to decide the Claim Application. Therefore, the Appellant cannot state that particular procedure is required to be followed by the Railway Claims Tribunal while deciding the Application before it.

In the light of the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides, I have perused the record and considered the facts of the present case.

In the present case, the Appellant/Claimant has submitted her Claim Application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 before the Tribunal in the format, as provided under Section 16, and more particularly, in the format as provided under FORM-II of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989. The Appellant has given brief particulars of the untoward incident in which her deceased son namely, Vishnu was caused death in the railway accident.

It is the case of the Appellant that on 6/2/2018 deceased Vishnu was travelling from Huzur Saheb Nanded to Umri. While travelling by the train, he fell down from the train. At the time of travelling he was having valid railway ticket. As such, considering the fact that untoward incident is took place in the matter, Appellant is entitled for compensation under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.

The said application was opposed by the Respondent/Railway Administration. According to them, deceased was not possessing valid railway ticket while travelling by Huzur Saheb Nanded to Umri train. It is their contention that on 6/2/2018 the ticket was issued to him, but the body of the deceased Vishnu was spotted by the Key-man on next day i.e. 7/2/2018 at 8.55 hours. The body was cut into two parts i.e. lower body part lying between the track and upper body part lying on the side of track, and therefore, it is submitted that it is the case of self-inflicted injury and not an untoward incident.

It is the contention of Railway Administration that case of the Appellant/Claimant do not fall in first part of Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. Rather the case of the Appellant falls under the proviso of Section 124-A, and therefore, the Claimant is not entitled for compensation in the matter.

In view of the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides, learned Tribunal has framed issues in the matter and proceeded to decide the proceeding on its own merits. After framing issues, parties were permitted to lead evidence before the Railway Tribunal. In pursuance of the same, Appellant has filed evidence by way of Affidavit in Form No. VIII as per Rule 14 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989. After filing the said affidavit she was cross-examined by the Respondent/Railway Administration before the Railway Claims Tribunal.

It is seen from the record that though the Respondent has taken defence of self-inflicted injury and raised the defence that the Appellant is not entitled for compensation as the case falls under the proviso of Section 124-A, did not enter into the witness-box to establish their stand before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, after recording evidence of the parties, by the impugned Judgment dismissed the Claim Application filed by the Appellant/Claimant by holding that it is a case of self-inflicted injury, and therefore, the Appellant is not entitled for any compensation in the matter.

This Court came across to the various cases decided by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal and observed that procedure which is incorporated under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, is not followed in most of the cases. The Railway Tribunal is deciding the cases only on the basis of submissions made before him though he is having substantial powers as to how to deal with this proceeding so that every Claim Application can be decided in the proper and legal manner. Therefore, in order to have proper decisions on the pending Claim applications before the Railway Tribunal, in my opinion, the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 are required to be considered in detail so that the procedure can be enumerated as to how the Tribunal shall deal with the Claim Applications which are filed before him by the litigants.

It would be first necessary to refer Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads thus :

According to this provision, on account of untoward incident, the passenger or claimant or relative of the deceased are entitled for compensation. Hence, it would be relevant to consider the definition of “untoward incident” which is provided under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads thus :

From the reading of above two provisions, it is clear that a person who has purchased valid ticket of travelling by a train on any date or valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident is entitled for the compensation. Only in case where the case of the Claimant falls under the proviso would not be entitled for compensation in the railway accident.

In the light of this provision of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, to award the compensation to the Claimant, the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was enacted. As per the said enactment, under Section 3 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Railway Claims Tribunal has been established. In the said enactment, jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Railway Claims Tribunal was prescribed, and more particularly, under Section 13, Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal are prescribed.

As per this provision, the Tribunal shall have powers and authority, as were exercised by the Civil Court before coming into force the Claim Tribunal. It is further made clear that the Claims Tribunal shall exercise on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, of such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any Civil Court in respect of claims for compensation payable by the Railway Administration under Section 124-A of the Act or Rules made thereunder.

Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides procedure to move an application for seeking relief in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 13 for claiming the compensation. The said provision provided the format, in which the application has to be submitted to the Claims Tribunal.

Section 17 of the Act provides limitation of one year to file application before the Claims Tribunal in the light of Section 13 of the Act.

Section 18 of the Act provides the procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal, which reads thus :

Bare perusal of this provision clarify that though the Claims Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 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. The Claims Tribunal is also empowered while discharging its functions as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely, (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (f) reviewing its decisions; (g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte; (h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex parte; (i) any other matter which may be prescribed.

Section 22 of the Act has empowered the Claims Tribunal to execute its Judgment as a decree of Civil Court and, for this purpose, the Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court.

Section 23 of the Act provides the Appeal against the Judgment of the Claims Tribunal before this Court within a period of 90 days from the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

Section 30 of Act provides power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. The Legislature, in exercise of powers under Section 30 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act has prepared the rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act namely, Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989. Under this Rules, the procedure for filing application was drafted. After filing such application, the registrar of the Claims Tribunal is required to make scrutiny of the said application and then put up before the Tribunal. Rule 14 of the Rules 1989 terms the purpose to give evidence by way of affidavit. If the Tribunal considers it necessary for just decision of the case, it may order cross-examination of the Deponent. Every affidavit is required to be filed before the Tribunal in the Form VIII. The Form VIII which is prescribed under the Rules is as under :

Perusal of this Form shows that the party shall sworn oath and thereby declare that he has understood the contents of Application and correct as per his personal knowledge. Affidavit shall be affirmed before the Judicial Magistrate or Registrar or Additional Registrar of Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal or a Notary or Oath Commissioner or an Advocate. The Attestor shall also make an endorsement on the documents annexed in the affidavit under his signature.

The Respondent in Claim Petition is also entitled to file reply and copies of documents on or before the date of hearing. After completion of the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal can consider admission and denial of the documents before framing issues ascertaining from the parties, whether they admit or deny the documents accompanying the application or reply, if any, and shall record such admission and denial under Rule 15-B. On that basis the Tribunal then under Rule 15-C shall mark the documents filed by the Applicant as ‘A’ series and the documents filed by the Respondent shall be marked as ‘R’ series and the documents, which are exhibited by the Tribunal, shall be marked as ‘C’ series.

Under these Rules, a person whose evidence is to be recorded has to administer oath by the Court Master or the Commissioner and then evidence can be recorded, as provided under Rule 17-A.

Under Rule 21 of the Rules, 1989, the procedure is prescribed, how to frame and determine the issues. It is also provided that after framing the issues the Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence thereon which each party may desire to produce. So also under Rule 22 the Tribunal can issue summonses to the parties for appearance as a witness by recording the reasons. Then the Tribunal is required to make a brief memorandum of the substance of the evidence of every witness as the examination of the witness proceeds and such memorandum shall form part of the record.

Hence, after considering all these exercise, the Tribunal has to decide the application on the basis of the documents, affidavits and other evidence as well as by considering the oral argument advanced by the parties before him and pass the Judgment in prescribed form as contemplated under Rule 31 of the Rules, 1989. It is also clear that under Rule 32 the Tribunal has powers of review of its own decision, if there is any error apparent on the face of record pointed out by the parties in the Judgment delivered by the Tribunal. So also under Rule 44, the Tribunal has been provided the inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process of the Tribunal.

From the provisions referred from the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 make it clear that the Tribunal is vested with the powers of the Code of Civil Procedure, though not in a strict sense, but to some extent provisions of the Code of Civil procedure are required to be followed while deciding the cases filed before him. It is so, because from the above discussed provisions made it clear that order passed by the Tribunal has to be treated as a decree of the Civil Court, as the Tribunal has power of review of its own Judgment and also to execute the same in the manner prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure.

It would be, therefore, relevant to consider the definition of “decree” which is provided under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The “decree” is defined as as under :

The definition of “decree” specifically means that there should be a formal expression of adjudication which should conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the proceeding. Therefore, once these powers are available with the Tribunal, to determine the dispute between two parties, the procedure as expected by this Court is that — to call witness; frame issues; consider the evidence; after recording evidence exhibit the documents; and after exhibition of documents, their consideration should be reflected in the Judgment as to how the Tribunal reached to the said conclusion. This procedure is required to be followed by the Tribunal so that the application shall be decided in legal and proper manner.

It is necessary on the part of the Tribunal as per Rule 15-C of the Rules, 1989 to mark the documents as prescribed therein. The documents, which are exhibited, are required to be considered while delivering the Judgment, and on that basis, Claim Applications are required to be decided. This is required to be followed, because of Section 25 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, stated that all the proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal are deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of provisions of Indian Penal Code, which is now known as Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

In the light of the abovesaid provisions, it is expected that the Tribunal shall decide the proceedings which were filed before it. However, this Court noticed in various appeals which were filed against the Judgment of the Railway Tribunal that the procedure as contemplated under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 are not strictly followed while deciding Claim Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal.

It is noticed by this Court that though the Rules, 1989 has provided specific format of the affidavit under which the affidavits are to be filed, the same are not filed by the Appellant before the Claims Tribunal. The perusal of the affidavit which is available on record in the present Appeal as Document A-86 on oath, clarify how the affidavits are filed before the Tribunal. It should be in Form No. VIII of the Rule 14, but the same is not affirmed either before the Judicial Officer or Magistrate or Registrar, or Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal or a Notary, or Oath Commissioner or an Advocate or any other competent authority as prescribed in the Form VIII, which is reproduced hereinabove in the matter. The affidavits, which usually placed before the Railway Tribunal, are in same manner i.e. only signed by the Claimant without having affirmation. Such affidavit being not in format must have been objected by the Railway Tribunal while deciding the Claim Application. As such, in absence of proper affirmation of facts, Tribunal entertained the affidavits and proceeded to decide the application.

As this Court reached to the conclusion that to some extent provision of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the Tribunal and Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 empowered the Tribunal to receive the evidence on affidavit, then it shall be recorded as per Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Order 18 Rule 4 prescribed as to how examination-in-chief of the witness shall be recorded on affidavit by supplying copy of the same to the opposite party and thereafter the documents, which are filed or relied upon along with the affidavit, shall be admissible subject to the orders of the Court. It would be further necessary by applying principles of natural justice that opposite party should be given opportunity to cross-examine the witness and after testing the said witness, it can be said that recording of evidence is completed in the matter. But, in the present case, the evidence, which was submitted by the party was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor the Tribunal exhibited documents accordingly. Therefore, it is expected that Railways Claims Tribunal shall follow this basic principle in each case while deciding Claim Application.

In the cases, which came up before this Court, this Court has noticed that before the Railway Claims Tribunal, learned Counsel appearing for the Railway Tribunal is mainly relied upon the report accepted by the Divisional Railway Manager, which is prepared by conducting investigation under Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2020.

In view of this, I have also gone through the Railway Passengers, (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2020. On perusal of these Rules, it is mandated that on coming to the knowledge of the occurrence of an untoward incident, any railway servant, including member of the Force, Guard and Driver of the train, is required to report incident immediately to the nearest Stations Master/Station Superintendent of Railways.

The Station Superintendent, on receipt of such information about the occurrence of untoward incident, is required to maintain a separate exclusive register for recording the untoward incidents and make a brief report in respect of spot of the untoward incident and forward copies thereof to the Divisional Office, Zonal Railways, Police and Divisional Security Commissioner of the Force. As per the Rules, 2020, the ‘Force’ means Railway Protection Force. On receipt of information to the Station Superintendent, the Force is required to carry out investigation and submit his report. At the same time, the Police who are informed by the Station Superintendent, can conduct independent enquiry into the railway accident and follow the procedure as laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is now known as Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Report prepared by the Force then submitted to the Divisional Security Commissioner of Force and he has to submit the report to the Divisional Railway Manger within fifteen days of the receipt of report of Investigation Officer. The Divisional Railway Manager, after receipt of the report, shall examine the same, and if necessary, call further explanation from the Investigation Officer. After exercising all these powers, the final order passed on the report by the Divisional Railway Manager is required to be communicated to the Station Superintendent, who shall maintain record and make necessary entry to the station-diary to that effect.

Under the Rules, 2020, the investigation report along with recommendation of Divisional Railway Manager thereon, is required to submit to the administrative in-charge of the Claim office of the Zonal Railway where the incident has occurred. The administrative in-charge of Claim office of the Zonal Railway, in case received the notice of the claim filed by the Claimant, is required to submit the report to the presenting officer (Railway Claims Tribunal) and on the basis of their submission and recommendation of Divisional Railway Manager, they can decide whether claim is to be admitted or contested before the Tribunal.

In view of Rules, 2020, investigation report, which is accepted by the Railway Administration after receipt of notice of Claim Petition, is having a statutory force. Therefore, the parties are required to decide the case on the basis of said investigation report. Normally, the Claimants, who filed the Claim Application, were not the eye-witnesses of the incident. In such circumstances, they can rely upon the statutory report and plead their case before the Tribunal. So also the Respondent/Railway Administration has to take a defence in consonance with the investigation report which was accepted by the Divisional Railway Manager.

In this regard, it is the submission of the Respondent/Railway Administration that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India V/s Rina Devi, (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 572, initial onus to prove death or injury is always on the Claimant. For that purpose, he has to file affidavit of relevant facts before the Tribunal and prove his case. Therefore, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India would prevail in the matter. In this regard, it would be necessary to clarify that the Judgment in the case of Rina Devi (supra) was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 9/5/2018 and the Railway Passengers, (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2020 came into force from 3/6/2020. As such, it is clear that at the time of delivering the Judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Rules 2020 were not in existence, and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in absence of the Rules, 2020, has observed accordingly. But, once the Rules are framed and on acceptance of investigation report prepared by the Investigation Officer, authorities of Railway decided to contest the Claim Petition, Claimant can demand the copy of investigation report and on that basis contest the application before the Railway Claims tribunal instead of filing affidavit, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter. In view of these Rules, now the Claimant, after going through the investigation report, can file an affidavit and state the relevant facts so that the Tribunal can decide the Claim Petition accordingly. Hence, in the light of these subsequent Rules, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is required to be made applicable in the matter.

Likewise, if the Railway Administration is coming with a case of self-inflicted injury, then they have to establish their case by relying upon the investigation report prepared under Rules, 2020. The Railway Administration, for establishing their case, can examine the person whose statements were recorded by the Investigation Officer before the Tribunal so that the Claimant would also get an opportunity to cross-examine the said person. After conducting the examination of such person, the Tribunal can evaluate the evidence and reach to the proper conclusion. But, in any case, merely on the basis of oral submission or the statement of the person recorded by the Investigation Officer, cannot decide the Claim Application unless cross-examination of such person conducted in the matter.

In view of this, it would be necessary for the Railway Claims Tribunal that in case the Railway Administration denied the claim of compensation, it would be necessary to ask to produce statutory report before the Tribunal to establish their defence before the Tribunal in terms of proviso of Section 124-A. The Railway Administration has to establish on the basis of Investigation Report prepared under the Railway Passengers, (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2020 that the passenger committed suicide or attempted to commit suicide, self-inflected injury or criminal act or any act committed by him in the intoxicated condition.

The Railway Tribunal, who is empowered to frame the issues and lead evidence thereon, is expected to record its finding on each issue on the basis of evidence made available before him by the parties. However in most of the cases, this Court has noticed that only the issues are framed, but no specific answer is recorded on issues in the Judgment to clarify whether issues were proved or not by the parties before him. Therefore, once the issues are framed, consequently the decision on that issues is expected from the Railway Claims Tribunal with a specific findings on the basis of evidence recorded before the Tribunal. Therefore, this procedure is also expected to be followed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in the matters, in which the claim has been denied by the Railway Administration.

In the light of above observation, I have perused the record of the present case. On perusal of the record, I have noticed that Claim Application before the Railway Claims Tribunal was filed in the proper format, but same was not affirmed as required under the relevant rules by the Claimant before the Tribunal. The written statement, which was filed by the Railway Administration, was also without affirmation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, as contemplated under Rule 14 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.

It is further seen from the record that, affidavit, which was filed by the Appellant, was again not sworn as contemplated in Form VIII as per the prescribed procedure as contemplated under Rule 14. The documents, which were enclosed along with the affidavit, its admissibility was also not considered nor same were marked as required under Rule 15-C of the Rules, 1989.

The learned Tribunal, while deciding the Claim Application has recorded the issues, and accordingly, discussed every issue in the impugned Judgment. However, while recording the finding, it is not made clear, whose evidence is relied upon by him to reach to the conclusion. Therefore, in absence of all these exercise, the conclusion drawn in the matter is not logical and consequently same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

The learned Counsel for Respondent/Railway Administration states that as per the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, Railway Claims Tribunal can regulate its own procedure for deciding the Claim Application. It is true that said procedure can be regulated by the Tribunal, but when the specific Rules are framed under Section 30 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Railway Tribunal cannot give go-bye to the said Rules under the garb that he can regulate his own procedure for deciding the Claim Application. It is settled position of law that when any Rules are framed, the same are required to be followed by the Authority so that the Claimant or party who approached before the Tribunal shall built confidence that his application has been decided by following due procedure of law. Therefore, the Tribunal is required to follow the Rules, 1989 while dealing with the Claim Application filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

It is also necessary to note that the learned Tribunal, while deciding the Claim Application shall also take into consideration the guidelines laid down in landmark Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, whereby the legal position has been made clear as to how the Tribunal shall deal with the cases for compensation in Railways Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, considering the fact that the Tribunals are not deciding the cases in a logical manner, has laid down the guidelines as to how the quantum of compensation shall be determined. The definition of passenger, concept of self-inflicted injury, awarding of interest etc.. is recorded in the case of Rina Devi (supra). So also the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has explained how the expression “untoward incident” as contemplated under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 i.e. the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers shall be interpreted in the case of Union of India V/s Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 527.

In the present matter, admittedly, the procedure which is recorded above, is not followed in the matter, therefore, it would be necessary to remand back the matter to the Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh consideration to decide Claim Petition by following procedure, as contemplated under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and Rules, 1989. Accordingly, following order is passed.

Since the First Appeal is disposed of, pending Civil Application (CAF) No. 4085/2026 does not survive. The same stands disposed of accordingly.