Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shilabai wd/o Raghunath Hemne, lost her husband in a railway accident on 04.10.2002. She filed a claim for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. She filed various documents in support of her claim and on 11.12.2003 filed an affidavit in lieu of evidence, which was in English. During cross-examination, she stated that she had signed the affidavit but did not know its contents as it was written in English. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the claimant had failed to prove her case because she was not aware of the contents of her affidavit. The appellant appealed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The High Court considered the submissions of both parties. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim on a technical ground and that the Tribunal, under Section 18 of the Act of 1987, is not bound by the CPC but by principles of natural justice. The respondent supported the Tribunal's decision. The High Court framed the issue of whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim. The Court noted that the claim petition was in English but signed by the appellant in vernacular, and that various documents were on record. The Court held that the Tribunal ought to have considered all the evidence on record and not dismissed the claim solely because the affidavit was in English. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits, directing the Tribunal to give an opportunity to the appellant to file a fresh affidavit in vernacular or to lead oral evidence. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Railway Law - Compensation for Death - Section 124A Railways Act, 1989 - Affidavit in English - Claimant illiterate in English - The Tribunal dismissed the claim because the claimant stated in cross-examination that she did not understand the English affidavit. The High Court held that the Tribunal ought to have considered all documents on record and not rejected the claim on technical grounds. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-6) B) Procedural Law - Railway Claims Tribunal Procedure - Section 18 Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Principles of Natural Justice - The Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure but must follow principles of natural justice. Dismissing a claim solely because the affidavit was in a language not understood by the claimant violates natural justice when other evidence exists. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim for compensation solely on the ground that the claimant was not aware of the contents of her affidavit which was in English.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 09.01.2004 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur for fresh consideration on merits. The Tribunal shall give an opportunity to the appellant to file a fresh affidavit in vernacular or to lead oral evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.10.2015. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Railway Claims Tribunal not bound by CPC but by principles of natural justice
- Affidavit in language not understood by deponent does not automatically invalidate claim
- Tribunal must consider all evidence on record
- Section 18 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act
- 1987
- Section 124A of Railways Act
- 1989
