D. SRINIVASAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is by the appellant being aggrieved by the order made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench on 28.8.1992 in O.A. No. 85/1992 holding that the application of the appellant for compensation under Section 13 -A(II) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act ('the Act for short) was not maintainable.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

(3.) SRI A.V. Gangadharappa, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that there was a clear averment in the Claim Petition that while the appellant was boarding the Bangalore Hyderabad Express Train, a heavy iron girder which was loosely and carelessly fixed for electrification work, suddenly fell on the train and then on him, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. That being so, the Tribunal ought to have seen that Section 82 -A (Section 124 of the new Act) was attracted as the incident amounted to accident occurring therein and that this word 'accident' came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Sunil Kumar Ghosh, AIR 1984 SC 1737 Indeed he submits that he cited this judgment before the Tribunal which was good enough to extract para 13 of the said judgment; yet it failed to apply its mind to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, which is in favour of the appellant. Sri Gangadharappa, further argued that the conclusion of the Tribunal holding that the application was not maintainable was erroneous and the same was liable to be reversed.