Allowed

UR4MIAL Devi and Ors. v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC10 Aug 2015CMA/4396/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in a civil miscellaneous appeal against an order dismissing a railway accident claim, held that the Railway Claims Tribunal acted without adequate material and failed to examine key witnesses. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for re-evaluation after giving both parties a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17/03/2009 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal to decide afresh within four months after affording an opportunity of hearing to bot

UR4MIAL Devi and Ors. Vs Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR

¶3

SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.4396/ 2009 Urmila & anr. Vs. Union of I ndia

¶4

Date of Order :: 10/ 08/ 2015

¶5

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE J.K. RANKA

¶6

Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun, counsel for the appellant

¶7

Instant appeal by the claimants-appellants u/Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dt.17/03/2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in OA-II-40/2004 whereby the claim petition of the claimants-appellants has been dismissed.

¶8

It was case of the claimants-appellants before the Tribunal that on 16/06/2003, one Paras Ram commenced journey from Bandikui to Nadbai by Agra Fort Passenger Training holding a valid second class railway journey ticket and while the said train reached near Level Crossing of Nadbai railway station, said Paras Ram, as a result of a jerk, fell down from the running train and sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the way while taking to the hospital.

¶9

Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is wholly perverse and even version of Shiv Ram, according to him, supports the claim that Paras Ram sustained multiple and grievous injuries on account of sudden start of the train but neither Shiv Ram

¶10

¶11

nor any other witness has come in the witness box. He further

¶12

contended that neither the train driver nor any other person has come to support the version that Paras Ram was crossing the Level crossing of Nadbai Railway Station. He further contended that Paras Ram was holding valid second class railway journey ticket but since he, as a result of jerk, accidentally fell down from the running train and sustained multiple grievous injuries, it may be that the ticket in such situation might have come out from the pocket or lost as such on the way to the hospital. He contended that there were many people who had seen Paras Ram falling down but since the appellant herein, being a widow of Paras Ram (deceased), has not been able to bring on record adequate material or evidence. He contended that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is without any basis and the appeal deserves consideration.

¶13

I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the appellant and have gone through the material available on record.

¶14

In my considered opinion, the Tribunal has passed the order impugned without ample material being placed before it and at least Shiv Ram, Head Constable, who informed the Police Station, Bharatpur through telephonic message, ought to have come in the witness box and his statement ought to have been recorded before the Tribunal and that

¶15

¶16

apart, the concerned Station Master and the driver of the train

¶17

have also not been examined in absence of which, no specific finding could have been arrived at by the Tribunal and in these circumstances, in my view, the matter requires further consideration by the Tribunal and the Tribunal is required to go into the facts and material once again on the basis of material and evidence to be placed by both the sides.

¶18

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dt.17/03/2009 passed in the instant case is quashed & set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide it afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order

¶19

However, the Tribunal may not be influenced/inhibited by the observations made herein above. (J.K. Ranka), J.

¶20

Raghu

¶21

Cer t i f i cat e: Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng e- mai l ed. Raghu, Sr . PA.

UR4MIAL Devi and Ors. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

UR4MIAL Devi and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramavatar Sharma Vs R N G E I Tribunal Jaipur

Sukhdeo Ram Vs Director Consolidation Oflands

Parmanu Vidyut Karmchari Vs Site Director Raj Atomic Ors.

Smt Seema Alias Vishnu Vs Suresh

Ramji Lal andANR Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vikram Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp