Full Judgment
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.356 of 2014 Associated Enterprises, PASA House, Circular Road P.O & P.S. Lalpur, Distt. Ranchi .… Applicant/Appellant Versus The Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, 11, Garden Reach Road P.O & P.S. Garden Reach, Kolkata ..... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Jay Shankar Jha, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Ram Nivas Roy,Adv. --------- 05/Dated:
06. 7.2015 This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.7.2014 in review case no. REV/RNC/2014/0004 passed by Hon'ble Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, whereby the review application to restore Claim Case no. TAC/RAN/1998/0008 to its original file and permit the appellant to produce further documentary and oral evidence in support of his case under Section 18(3)(f) of the Railways Claim Tribunal Act 1987 and prayer for setting aside the judgment dated 29.4.2014 passed in Claim Case No. TAC/RAN/1998/0008 whereby the appellant claim for grant of compensation of Rs. 1,41,956/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the application was refused.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/appellants has submitted that an effort was made for settlement of the dispute between the parties out of the tribunal (RCT) and in fact the Chief Commercial Manager (law) on 16.2.2000 had settled the matter with the applicant/appellant and had agreed to pay Rs.1,36,000/- in favour of applicant no.2, Associated Enterprises, as per Annexure-2. It is urged that it would be evident from the Annexure-4 that in spite of the said final settlement the railway authority sat over the matter and after lapse of 13 years repudiated the settlement. It is canvassed that when the applicant adduced the evidence in support of the claim then after lapse of 14 years an objection 2 was raised by the respondent on the question regarding the locus standi of the applicant no.2. This objection was set aside and the learned tribunal held that applicant no.2 has a locus standi in terms of Rule 5 of the Railway Claim Tribunal (procedure) Rule 1989. That the tribunal also considered the fact that the respondent had settled the matter with the applicant M/s Associated Enterprises out of the tribunal and the learned Tribunal had directed the applicant no.2 to submit documentary proof on the point of ownership and about the damage which has been debited by M/s TISCO. That the said documents could not be submitted on dates i.e. 22.1.2014, 17.2.2014, 14.3.2014 and 29.4.2014, whereupon the learned tribunal as passed the judgment refusing the claim of the applicant on technicalities on the ground of non-production of the documents. Thereafter the applicant had preferred a review petition under Section 18(3)(f) of the Railways Act, within the statutory period but the same was rejected by the impugned order holding that sufficient cause and explanation was not made for non-production and appearance of the conducting lawyer. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the review application it was specifically mentioned in para nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 that on 22.1.2014 the counsel for the applicant was present however the records of the case was not brought to the court and due to non-availability of the record the case was fixed on 17.2.2014. That the representative of the company could not attend his office as he had met with an accident and was admitted in a hospital due to which learned counsel for the applicant could not procure the documentary evidence. On that date on the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant time was granted for producing the documentary proof. That on the next date i.e.14.3.2014 and 25.4.2014 both the parties were not present when the case was called for and documents were not placed before the tribunal. That on 14.3.2014 the wife of the conducting lawyer started having labour pains at 9.00 a.m. as such she admitted to Sadar Hospital, in support of which the medical certificate i.e. 3 Annexure-1, has been filed. That on 25.4.2014 the conducting lawyer was not present in town as he had to attend the marriage of his niece at his native place on 23.4.2014 and on next day i.e. on 24.4.2014 there was voting for 16th Parliamentary Election at the native constituency of the conducting lawyer and the counsel was under bonafide impression he will be able to return to Ranchi on 25.4.2014 after casting his vote. However, since the buses plying on the route from Godda to Ranchi were not available due to requisitioning of the vehicles for poll duty and in the absence of any train route from Godda to Ranchi he could not reach Ranchi on the date fixed in the case. It is submitted that the conducting lawyer could not appear due to the circumstances which were beyond his control and there has been no deliberate or intentional laches on his part. It is submitted that the tribunal should have appreciated the sequence of events and the facts and circumstances resulting in non-appearance of the counsel. It is urged that the applicant has been diligent in prosecuting the case and all the documents have been filed in the tribunal and he shall not seek further time for filing any documents. That he shall co-operate in early and expeditious conclusion of the case. It is urged that the matter be remitted to the learned Tribunal by setting aside the order with a direction to conclude the trial at the earliest.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the applicant was given enough opportunity to adduce evidence on several dates. However he does not have any objection if the matter was remitted to the tribunal, to decide the case on merit, at the earliest.
4. Heard. On perusal of the medical certificates and the record it appears that sufficient cause and reasonable explanation has been given by the appellant for non-appearance of the counsel on the dates fixed in the case before the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the order dated 24.7.2014 in review case no. REV/RNC/2014/0004 passed by Hon'ble Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, as well as the judgment dated 29.4.2014 passed in Claim Case No. TAC/RAN/1998/0008 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the tribunal 4 (Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi) to decide the case on merit by affording the appellant an opportunity to adduce the evidence/documentary proof. The learned Tribunal shall ensure that the parties do not seek unnecessary adjournment and pass necessary order on merit within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
5. With the said direction and observation this appeal is hereby allowed to the extent noted above. (AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) fahim/-