Bombay High Court
Smt. Shobhabai W/O Hari Tayade And ... vs The Union Of India, Through General ... on 8 April, 2019
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
WP606.19.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.606 OF 2019
PETITIONERS: 1. Smt. Shobhabai w/o Hari Tayade,
Aged about 39 yrs., Occ: Household,
2. Shri Manohar S/o Hari Tayade,
Aged about 39 yrs., Occ: Household,
3. Shri Jitendra S/o Hari Tayade,
Aged about 22 yrs., Occ: Education,
All R/o Kund, Post Godasgaon,
Tal. Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Union of India,Through the General
Manager,
Central Railway Zone, Mumbai CST.
2. Shri Rajaram S/o Shripat Tayade,
Aged about 60 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Kund, Post Godasgaon, Tal.
Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon.
Shri P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri N. P. Lambat, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 08th APRIL, 2019.
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 23:34:48 :::
WP606.19.odt 2/5
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners are the claimants who have filed proceedings for compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation for an accident that occurred on 8-6-2010. The said proceedings were filed on 22- 11-2011. The written statement was filed by the Railway Authorities opposing the claim. On 21-11-2013 the claim petition was dismissed in default on the ground that the claimants and their Counsel were absent since many dates. Thereafter, on 19-12- 2013 a restoration application was filed by the petitioners praying that the proceedings be restored for adjudication. A reply was filed opposing the said application. On 19-3-2015 even the restoration application was dismissed on the ground that there was no representation on the part of the claimants. The petitioners thereafter on 23-11-2017 filed another application seeking condonation of delay in filing the fresh restoration application. This application was opposed by the respondents. On finding that said application was not maintainable, the same was not pressed. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed praying that the order dated 19-3-2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 23:34:48 ::: WP606.19.odt 3/5 dismissing the restoration application be set aside.
3. Shri P. R. Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings came to be dismissed on account of absence of the petitioners Counsel. All the petitioners were residents of Jalgaon District while the claim petition was filed at Nagpur. It was not possible for them to attend the proceedings on each date and therefore it could not have expected that they would remain present at Nagpur. They were also handicapped due to the death of the earning member of the family and therefore he submitted that the proceedings be restored for adjudication on merits.
4. Shri N. P. Lambat, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the aforesaid submissions. According to him, the petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting the claim petition. Since the proceedings were filed at Nagpur, it was the duty of the petitioners to have prosecuted the same diligently. Moreover, the petitioners would get the advantage of interest on the amount of compensation if granted due to pendency of the proceedings and the respondent No.1 thereafter have to bear that burden without being at fault.
5. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the documents on record. It can be seen that the petitioners who are the ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 23:34:48 ::: WP606.19.odt 4/5 claimants are seeking compensation on account of an untoward incident involving the husband of the petitioner No.1. They are all residents of Jalgaon District while the proceedings are filed at Nagpur. It is a fact that on 21-11-2013 the proceedings were dismissed in default due to absence of their Counsel. The restoration of proceedings was sought on 19-12-2013. Even those proceedings were dismissed on 19-3-2015 due to absence of the petitioners and their Counsel. It can be seen that there is no deliberate reason for the petitioners to have remained absent before the Claims Tribunal. It was not possible for them to attend the said proceedings from Jalgaon on every date. As the petitioners are seeking compensation for the alleged untoward incident, an adjudication on merits is warranted. At the same time the interests of the respondent No.1 would have to be protected as it would be required to satisfy the claim for compensation if granted with interest for all this period. Taking these aspects into consideration, the following order is passed:
(1) The order dated 19-3-2015 passed on the restoration application is set aside. That application is allowed and after setting aside the order dated 21-11-2013 passed in the claim petition, the claim petition is also restored to file for its adjudication on merits. However, for the period of delay as caused ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 23:34:48 ::: WP606.19.odt 5/5 the petitioners would not be entitled for interest on the amount of compensation if awarded which period would be from 19-3-2015 to 23-1-2019. The claim petition be decided expeditiously on its own merits and in accordance with law.
(2) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE /MULEY/ ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 23:34:48 :::