NINGAMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference arises from order dtd. 15/7/2021 made by a Division Bench of this Court on the ground that there are two conflicting judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction in respect of the accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to a person arising out of the accident between the motor vehicle and the train/railway administration.

(2.) The factual backdrop in which the reference has been made to this Bench needs mention. The appellants herein were the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'MACT'). They have filed an application under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'MV Act'). The MACT, by judgment and award dtd. 4/6/2005 allowed the applications and awarded the compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein i.e., railway authorities have filed MFA Nos.1584/2004, 10569/2005 and 10570/2005 under Sec. 173(1) of the MV Act before this Court. This Court by an order dtd. 23/6/2009 allowed the appeals, quashing the award passed by the MACT, Ramanagaram in MVC Nos.414/2001, 278/1998 and 733/1998 on the ground that the MACT constituted under the MV Act has no jurisdiction to award such compensation, however reserved liberty to the claimants to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'RCT') constituted under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'RCT Act') and seek the remedies. The RCT was directed to decide the claims of the claimants on merit, in accordance with law, without going into the question of limitation, if the claimants were to approach the RCT.

(3.) Pursuant to the said order, the claimants have approached the RCT in OA II U 203/2013 and OA II U 204/2013. The RCT, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE reported in AIR 2012 SC 3038 and having regard to Sec. 13 of RCT Act has held that RCT has no jurisdiction to decide the case on hand and accordingly, dismissed the applications. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed the instant appeals before this Court.