ORDER : 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. REV/RNC/2013/0007, a/o OA (IIU)/RNC/2008/0033, order dated 19.07.2013 Annexure-4 by which the claim application of the applicant/appellant was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case as per the claim petition is that on 19.11.2007, the petitioner obtained a general ticket from Ranchi Railway Station for travelling in Train Number 8616 Hatia Howrah Express for going to Tata Nagar and at about 8:45 on the said date, while he was waiting for the train in Platform No. 1, the appellant was pushed by the crowd and he fell from the platform and his both legs were completely smashed below the knee by the running train. The petitioner was given the first aid by the Railway Medical Authority and thereafter he was referred to RIMS. During the course of accident and subsequent admission to the hospital, the purse as well as the Railway Travelling Ticket were misplaced. The claimant suffered 100 % disability. 3. Learned Tribunal after perusal of the records and examining the evidences, came to a finding that incident did not take place on 22.11.2007 and amendment cannot be allowed at this belated stage and dismissed the claim petition vide order dated 19.07.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred a review petition under Rule 32 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 read with Section 151 of the CPC, but same was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has approached this Court with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 14.02.2014. 4. Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that inadvertently the petitioner has mentioned the date of accident as 22.11.2007 instead of actual date of accident i.e. 19.11.2007, therefore, the appellant filed an application for amendment of the claim application, which was allowed vide its order dated 15.10.2012. 4. Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that inadvertently the petitioner has mentioned the date of accident as 22.11.2007 instead of actual date of accident i.e. 19.11.2007, therefore, the appellant filed an application for amendment of the claim application, which was allowed vide its order dated 15.10.2012. Therefore, the Railway Claim Tribunal vide its letter dated 13.05.2013 requested to conduct re-enquiry in view of the amendment and submit details of detailed report of the incident taking place in Ranchi Station on 19.11.2007, but learned Railway Claims Tribunal vide its order dated 19.07.2013 dismissed the claim case on the ground that on perusal of records it transpires that incident did not take place on 22.11.2013 and amendment cannot be allowed at the belated stage and dismissed the claim case. Therefore, the aforesaid order was erroneous and there was error apparent on the face of record as learned Claims Tribunal failed to take into consideration its order dated 15.10.2012 and dismissed the review petition also, completely ignoring the error which is apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgment. 5. Mr. Vijay Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway submits that after 12 years of the incident, this Hon’ble Court cannot allow for reopening of the investigation, which has already been investigated by the Railway Authorities and it was found that there was no accident on the date as claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition as well as review petition. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through submissions of the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that review petition itself was not maintainable against the order passed on 19.07.2013 as the order could not have been reviewed in view of Section 114 and Rule 1 of the Order XLVII of the CPC. Rule 32 runs contrary to Section 18 (3) (f) of the Act. As Rule 32 is repugnant to the statutory provision of Clause (f) of Sub-Section 18, it is certainly bad and in no case, can it be allowed to override the specific provision of the Act. Rule 32 runs contrary to Section 18 (3) (f) of the Act. As Rule 32 is repugnant to the statutory provision of Clause (f) of Sub-Section 18, it is certainly bad and in no case, can it be allowed to override the specific provision of the Act. It has also been held that it is settled principle of law that as per the Railway Act, there is no provision for re-enquiry or investigation for the same cause of action and once the case has already been decided by the learned Tribunal, the order cannot be reviewed. From perusal of the order dated 19.07.2013, it appears that already investigation/enquiry report was filed along with DRM comments on 11.04.2013 and no accident took place on 22.11.2013 as claimed by the claimant/appellant and as such, amendment at the belated stage was itself error of record, but the same was challenged by way of review, which was rightly dismissed as the same was not maintainable in the eyes of law. 7. As the incident took place in the year, 2007 and after 12 years, it cannot be ordered for re-opening of the investigation of the case, which has already been shut and closed. I do not find merit in the instant appeal and same is accordingly dismissed. 8. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for its payment to the claimant/appellant and for that office/Registry shall do the needful. 9. Let the LCR be returned to the Court below at the earliest.