Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 211 (JHR)

Sunaina Devi v. Union Of India

2020-02-03

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-railway. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner whose husband died due to a train accident in an unmanned level crossing. 3. Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner namely Brijnandan Das died on 19.01.2011 while he was going along with his buffalo for grazing, crossing the unmanned Railway Crossing at Sharma Basti Railway Crossing a train coming towards the crossing in high speed without appropriate singles run over the deceased resulting in his death. She further submits that the petitioner made a fardbyan on 19.01.2011 before the Railway Police Station, Tatanagar the said police station converted the fardbyan as U.D. Case No.07 of 2011 on 25.05.2011. She further submits that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the authority concerned but no decision has been taken as yet. She further submits that in view of the judgment rendered by the Honble Orissa High Court in the case of Laxmi Priya Sahoo and Anr. Vrs. Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway and Anr. reported in (2013) 3 T.A.C. 352 (Ori.) the claim of the petitioner is tenable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thats why the writ petition has been filed. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Railway submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is an alternative remedy under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 5. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the claim of the petitioner needs to be decided at the first instance by the authority concerned where the representation of the petitioner has been filed. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 with all the relevant documents which are in favour of the petitioner alongwith the judgment on which the petitioner is relying within a period of four weeks. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 with all the relevant documents which are in favour of the petitioner alongwith the judgment on which the petitioner is relying within a period of four weeks. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.2 will decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or her representative within eight weeks thereafter. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and directions.