C J THOMAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") entertain a claim for compensation in respect of an untoward incident that occurred prior to the enactment of the Railway (Amendment) Act 28 of 1994 with effect from 1-8-1994 is the main issue arising for decision in these appeals. Parties are referred to as applicants and respondent as before the Tribunal for convenience.

(2.) Short facts necessary for consideration of these appeals are: Son of the applicants while travelling in Train No. 6002, Mangalore-Chennai Mail on 24-5-1991 fell down from the train near Thrikkodi Railway Station, sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it. Applicants filed application before the Tribunal in the year 1992 claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 1 -3-1993 for want of jurisdiction since at that time, Tribunal had jurisdiction only to entertain application for compensation arising out of accident to trains. Applicants filed O.S. No. 12 of 1994 in the Sub Court, Quilandy on 30-3-1994 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. While the suit was pending in that court, Section 124A was introduced in the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act") by the Railway Amendment Act 28 of 1994 with effect from 1-8-1994. Section 13(IA) was introduced in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (for short, "the Tribunal act") by the same Act also effect from 1 -8-1994. Learned Sub judge, Quilandy found that in view of that amendment, jurisdiction to entertain the claim is vested with the Tribunal and accordingly, transferred the case to 36 the Tribunal. Tribunal received the file on 19-9-2001. Respondent before the Tribunal contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim since the accident had occurred on 24-5-1991 and Section 124A of the Act and Section 13(IA) of the Tribunal Act were introduced only with effect from 1-8-1994 and hence the Tribunal could not entertain the claim. Tribunal recorded evidence, rejected the contention of the respondent and awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 19-9-2001, the dateon which case was registered in the Tribunal on transfer from the civil court. Respondent before the Tribunal is aggrieved and preferred M.F.A No. 157 of 2008. Claiming that the tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident or at least from the date of institution of the suit in the Sub Court, Quilandy, applicants have filed M.F.A. No. 125 of 2008.

(3.) It is contended by learned Counsel for respondent, Union of India that Tribunal went wrong in holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Learned Counsel would contend that Sections 124A and 13(IA) were introduced in the respective Statutes only with effect from 1 -8-1994, amendment is only prospective and hence the Tribunal could not have entertained a claim in respect of an incident that occurred prior to the said amendment. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Union of India v. Satish Patidar,. According to learned Counsel for applicants the Tribunal could exercise jurisdiction even in respect of an untoward incident that occurred before 1-8-1994, the court where claim of the applicants was pending could only transfer the same to Tribunal, and placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in Vijayasankar v. Union of India,1995 (2) KLT 408