D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the railways against the judgment and award dated 15. 4. 1991 of the learned Sub-Judge, kuchinda decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for compensation arising out of a railway accident. ( 2 ) ONE Jyotirmayee Sahu, while travelling from Kesinga to Bamra in the 90 down Bokaro-Madras met with an accident because of sudden movement of the train without any signal. The same amounted to utter negligence of the driver and railway staff of the train. The claimants, that is the father, mother, brothers and sisters claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 for her death. ( 3 ) RAILWAYS remained ex pane on 2. 4. 1991 when the suit was fixed for hearing and on that date judgment was passed decreeing plaintiffs' suit for Rs. 2,00,000 and cost. Railways filed petition under Order IX, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code to set aside ex parte decree which was rejected by the court and judgment and decree was passed on merit. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the Railways strenuously submits that the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge is not tenable in the eye of law since by the date of such judgment Railway Claims Tribunal had already been established to entertain this claim thereby specifically barring jurisdiction of the civil court. It is contended that in all fairness it should have been appropriate on the part of the Sub-Judge to set aside ex parte order and give a chance to the Railways to contest the case on merit. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this court to the provisions of the Railway claims Tribunal Act. ( 5 ) MR. S. K. Purohit, learned counsel for the claimants, has taken me through the orders of the court below as well as the reasons given by the court in rejecting the petition under Order IX, rule 13, Civil procedure Code. ( 6 ) I have gone through the judgment of the Sub-Judge and the evidence on record. So far as the submission that the suit should have been restored to file. I find on examination of the record that the only ground taken in the restoration petition was that notices were not duly served, but on verification, it is found that the written statement by the Railways was filed on 3. 8. 1989. So far as the submission that the suit should have been restored to file. I find on examination of the record that the only ground taken in the restoration petition was that notices were not duly served, but on verification, it is found that the written statement by the Railways was filed on 3. 8. 1989. Therefore, the plea of absence of notice has been rightly rejected by the court. No other sufficient reason was given in the petition for restoration. Therefore, this part of the order cannot be set aside. ( 7 ) SO far as the point of jurisdiction is concerned, this matter was originally before the Sub-Judge, but it was transferred to the Tribunal by the order of that court. But, then the record reveals that the Railway Claims Tribunal returned the same to the Sub-Judge in its letter by stating that the case was not maintainable before the tribunal. Such a transfer from the Tribunal to the court of Sub-Judge is certainly not at the instance of the claimants themselves. Therefore, they were not to blame. There is no reason as to why the claimants should have suffered for action of the tribunal. This contention is, therefore, also rejected. ( 8 ) SO far as the merit is concerned, on going through the record, I find that the fact of Jyotirmayee travelling in the train and her meeting with an accident has been admitted and thus duly proved. Further this was deposed by her father who stated that he was travelling in the same train with her. This part of the evidence has not been challenged by the Railways in the written statement. No fact has been pleaded about what reasonable care and caution was taken by the driver of the train, nor a case of any negligence on the part of the deceased has been brought on record in the written statement. It was only mentioned that the facts were denied in every respect. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to set aside judgment and decree of the lower court though I am of the view that the judgment should have been more elaborate by giving details. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000 for this court. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000 already in deposit be released in favour of the claimants. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000 for this court. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000 already in deposit be released in favour of the claimants. Rest part of the decretal amount should be paid within three months from today along with cost, failing which it shall carry interest at 12 per cent per annum till such payment. Appeal dismissed.