Remanded

Bidulata Swain v. Union of India

Orissa HC24 Nov 2022FAO/142/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal award refusing compensation due to discrepancy in evidence. The High Court found the Tribunal failed to consider the claimants' amendment prayer stating the deceased was travelling in the train. The matter is remitted for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication after granting opportunity for hearing on the amendment prayer.

Bidulata Swain Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

FAO No.142 of 2020

¶3

Bidulata Swawin and another

Appellants

Mr.G.C.Das, Advocate

-versus-

Union of India

…. Respondents Mr.M.Pradhan, CGC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER 24.11.2022

Order No.

The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr.Das, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel for the Respondent-Union of India.

¶15

Present appeal by the claimants is directed against impugned judgment/award dated 6^th January, 2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in Case No.OA-II/291/2017, wherein the Railway Claims Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the death of the deceased in the alleged untoward incident.

¶16

Perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Tribunal has disbelieved the case of the claimants mainly on the ground of discrepancy in evidence of AW-3 and the averments made in the claim petition. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the claimants have averred that the deceased was standing on the

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

platform at the time of incident, whereas as per the evidence of AW-3, the son of the deceased, he was travelling in Gurudev Express and while getting down in the platform, the untoward incident happened. Therefore, the Tribunal disbelieved the entire case of the claimants for the discrepancies noticed in the averment and evidence.

¶19

Mr.Das submits for the claimants that a petition praying for amendment of the claim application was filed by the claimant since 7^th December, 2017 praying for amendment to the effect that, the deceased was travelling in the train concerned, which was ignored and left unnoticed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and the matter needs fresh adjudication.

¶20

Perusal of the L.C.R. reveals that a petition dated 7^th December, 2017 praying for amendment was filed by the claimants, and though the Tribunal by order dated 29^th January, 2018 dealt with some aspects of amendment to the claim application, but did not consider the very point regarding amendment that the deceased was travelling in Gurudev Express.

¶21

Thus, in view of non-consideration of the prayer for amendment sought for by the claimants much prior to the date of passing of award, it is felt apposite to remit the matter back to the Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

¶22

Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar to decide the claim application afresh after taking a decision on the prayer for amendment of the claimants and if necessary, grant further opportunity of hearing to

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

both parties. The parties present before this Court are directed to appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 12^th December, 2022 along with a certified copy of this order and the Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the claim application within a period of four months thereafter.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.

¶26

C.R.Biswal

¶27

( B.P. Routray)
Judge

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Bidulata Swain v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bidulata Swain v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudan Kasyap Vs State of Odisha

D.M, M/S. National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Bijaya Lakhmi Jena

The Divl. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ganeswar Behera

Kajal Mandal Vs Rama Ch.Pani

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kajal Mandal

Prem Sagar Pandey Vs Tapan Ku.Tripathy