Union of India Vs M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

2. By filing this appeal under section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act,1987, the appellant challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2022, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Claim application No.O.A.No.III-257/2011 whereby, the Respondent/appellant herein has been directed to pay compensation amount stipulated in the said judgment to the applicant/respondent with simple interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of original application till the date of judgment.

¶25

3. However, at the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. D. Rathi submits that as per clause (2) of section 4, of the Railway Tribunal Act, a bench of tribunal shall consist of one Judicial member and one technical member. However, in the present case, the impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2022, was passed only by Technical Member without the Judicial Member, which admittedly is not in accordance with the above

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

provision of law.

¶28

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court in MFA 90/2013. In the said order while allowing the petition, the matter was directed to be remanded back to the Railway Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the claim petition on merit. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that earlier by an order dated 09.07.2015, the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Union of India through General Manager & Ors vs Satendra RamjorOza & 7 Ors, in Special Civil Application No.2602 of 2013, basing on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amulya Chandra Kalita, wherein it was observed that every bench of the Tribunal must consist of a judicial member and an Administrative Member, has held that the Administrative member alone could not have heard and decide the matter. He further submits that based on the above observation, the learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court by an order dated 27.08.2018, passed in R/First Appeal No.1528/2018 (Minor Sumit Suresh Sharma Vs. Union of India) observed that, the claim application could not have been decided by a single member (Technical). This order dated 27.08.2018 was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.213-214 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.1505015051 of 2009) [Union of India Vs.Minor Sumit Suresh Sharma], and by an order dated 7.01.2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the SLP, thereby upheld the order dated 27.08.2018. In the light of the above decision, the learned counsel for the respondent submit that the matter may be sent back to the learned Tribunal for fresh trial on the matter consist of two members one judicial and one technical.

¶29

5. Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant conceded

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, and in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

¶32

6. In light of the above, and as held by the Apex Court in the above case of Union of India vs Minor Sumit Suresh Sharma (Supra), the impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2022 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Claim application No. No.O.A.No.III257/2011 is hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Railway Tribunal Guwahati for fresh adjudication of the claim petition on merit.

¶33

7. It is made clear that the claim application shall be heard by bench consisting one of Judicial member and one technical member. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. The claim application shall be decided afresh by learned tribunal without being influenced in any manner by any of the observation made in the impugned judgment and order.

¶34

8. Furthermore, the claim application shall be re-heard and decided preferably within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶35

9. With the above, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Union of India v. M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrabati Kakati and Anr. Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

Mrs Kusum Bala Nath and 2 Ors. Vs Dhrubajit Kalita and 2 Ors.

Smti Maya Saha and 3 Ors. Vs Shusanto Kr Saha

Ijzaz Rohan, Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Union of India Vs M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Sushanto Biswas and 2 Ors. Vs Aditi Das