Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2164 (BOM)

SHILABAI v. UNION OF INDIA

2015-09-14

A.S.CHANDURKAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : This appeal filed under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short the Act of 1987) takes exception to the judgment dated 9-1-2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur rejecting the claim application principally on the ground that the claimant had filed her affidavit in English and in her deposition she had stated that she could not understand English. 2. The facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal are that in an accident that took place on 4-10-2002, the appellant lost her husband aged about 56 yrs. She therefore filed proceedings for grant of compensation under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, the Act of 1989). She filed various documents in support of the claim. Thereafter on 11-12-2003 she filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence. This affidavit was in English. The appellant was cross-examined on behalf of respondent. In her cross-examination she stated that the affidavit was signed by her but she did not know the contents of the same as it was written in English. The learned Member of the Claims Tribunal considered the proceedings on merits and held that as the claimant was not aware about the contents of her affidavit, she had failed to prove her case. On that count the claim for compensation was dismissed. 3. Shri S.R. Charpe, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim application merely on the ground that the appellant was not aware about the contents of her affidavit that was prepared in English. Relying upon the provisions of section 18 of the Act of 1987 it was submitted that the Tribunal was not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but was guided by the principles of natural justice. It was then submitted that all relevant documents had been filed on record by the appellant for seeking compensation and the Tribunal ought to have considered the same. The Tribunal not having done so, the claim of the appellant was defeated for technical reasons. It was therefore submitted that the appellant was entitled to receive monetary compensation under the Act of 1989. 4. On the other hand Shri N.P. Lambat, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. The Tribunal not having done so, the claim of the appellant was defeated for technical reasons. It was therefore submitted that the appellant was entitled to receive monetary compensation under the Act of 1989. 4. On the other hand Shri N.P. Lambat, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that as the claimant was not aware about the contents of the affidavit sworn by her, her case had not been proved. In absence of the case being proved the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim. It was, therefore, submitted that there was no reason to interfere in the appeal. 5. The following point arises for consideration: Whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim for compensation? 6. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the records of the case as well as the impugned order. The claim petition filed by the appellant is in English which is duly signed by the appellant in vernacular. Along with the claim application, various documents were filed on record. The appellant thereafter filed an affidavit dated 11-12-2003 which was prepared in English. In her cross-examination, she admitted that though she had signed the affidavit, she was not aware of its contents as the same were in English. On that basis the Claims Tribunal held that the appellant had failed to prove her case and therefore dismissed the same. 7. Section 18(1) of the Act of 1987 reads thus : "18(1): The Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Claims Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its enquiry." Aforesaid provisions indicate that the Tribunal is guided by the principles of natural justice while adjudicating the claim for compensation. It also has necessary powers to regulate its own procedure. Under section 19 of the Act of 1987 a claimant can take the assistance of a legal practitioner of his/her choice. It also has necessary powers to regulate its own procedure. Under section 19 of the Act of 1987 a claimant can take the assistance of a legal practitioner of his/her choice. The provisions of Rule 4(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 require pleadings before the Claims Tribunal, at the option of the respective parties to be either in English or in Hindi. 8. In the present case the appellant had no knowledge of English but her affidavit had been prepared in English. In such situation it was necessary for the Tribunal to have taken into consideration said aspect and it could have directed the appellant to prove her case on the basis of an affidavit prepared either in Hindi or in vernacular. The Tribunal could have insisted for filing an affidavit in a language understood by the claimant. Merely because the claimant's counsel had prepared the affidavit in English, a language not understood by the appellant, same would be no reason to dismiss the claim by holding that claimant had not proved her case. It is to be noted that the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Act of 1989 are beneficial provisions aimed at awarding compensation on account of untoward incidents to ensure that compensation is granted in a deserving case. It is always open for the Claims Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred under section 18(1) of the Act of 1987 to regulate its own procedure and insist for filing an affidavit in a language understood by the claimant especially when it is the mandate of section 18(1) that the Claims Tribunal has to be guided by principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter the Claims Tribunal was not justified in non-suiting the appellant on the ground that her affidavit was filed in English and that she was not aware of its contents. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained on that count. The point as framed is answered accordingly. 9. In view of aforesaid discussion the following order is passed : (a) The judgment dated 9-1-2004 in Claim Application No. 125/OAII/RCT/NGP/2003 is set aside. The proceedings are remanded to the Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication after considering the observations made herein above. It would be open for the appellant to file a affidavit in vernacular language in support of her claim. The proceedings are remanded to the Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication after considering the observations made herein above. It would be open for the appellant to file a affidavit in vernacular language in support of her claim. The Claim Application shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. (b) The record and proceedings be sent to the Claims Tribunal forthwith. Parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 26-10-2015. As the claim for compensation is of the year 2003 the proceedings shall be decided expeditiously and by the end of March, 2016. (c) The Claims Tribunal shall take into consideration the aspect of dismissal of the present appeal on 18-10-2006 and its restoration on 17-4-2014 while awarding interest on the amount of compensation, if the same is granted. The respective submissions on said aspect are kept open. The appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.