NARENDRA KANTILAL DESAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT . Mrs. Megha Jani, learned advocate waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Union of India. With the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties, this Appeal is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) PRESENT Appeal has been filed by the appellants herein, original -applicants challenging the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal (Ahmedabad Bench), Ahmedabad, dated 5.5.2005 in Original Application No. 0300258 in dismissing the same.

(3.) THE appellants herein filed Original Application No. 0300258 on 20th June 2003 for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 under Section 124, 124 -A and 125 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 on account of untoward incident causing death of their son. It is the case on behalf of the appellants that as such there was a delay in filing the Claim Application and application for condonation of delay was submitted and the same was condoned by the learned Tribunal. The said OA No. 0300258 came up for final hearing before the Bench and a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that another Claim Application No. OA 0300153 is already filed by the very appellants for the same deceased person namely Tusharbhai for the same incident having taken place on 9.10.2000 and relating to the same train No. 9216 UP Saurashtra Janata Express train and/or for the same cause of action and the said fact has not been mentioned while submitting the Claim Application No. OA 0300258 and therefore it was requested to dismiss both the applications. It was submitted that a declaration was given in CA OA No. 0300258 that they have not filed any other application and therefore there is a false statement and declaration and therefore it was requested to dismiss both the applications as the applicants have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. It is the case on behalf of the appellants that in fact an affidavit was filed on their behalf that they have not filed any other application except CA OA No. 0300258 and the application No. OA 0300153 is not filed by them and that they have never signed any Vakalatnama or authorised the Advocate Shri S.A. Jadav who has filed OA 0300153 to file application on their behalf. It is the case on behalf of the appellants that in the affidavit dated 9.12.2003 it was specifically mentioned and declared by them that they have filed only one petition, i.e. OA No. 0300258 through their advocates AP Rajput and IJ Pratapgadhwala and therefore it was requested not to dismiss their Application No. OA 0300258. It appears that without even referring and/or considering the affidavit dated 9.12.2003 filed by the appellants the learned Tribunal by his impugned order dated 5.5.2005 dismissed both the applications, i.e., Claim Application No. OA 0300153 dated 23.12.2002 as well as CA OA No. 0300258 with cost of Rs. 5000 each by holding that claimants have filed two claim applications and there is suppression of material fact with regard to filing of the earlier application and also made a statement to the effect that they have not filed any other application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with dismissal of the Claim Application No. OA No. 0300258 the appellants have filed the present First Appeal.