UNION OF INDIA Vs. SIJU K.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present first appeal under Sec. 23 of the Railway Tribunal Act,1987 is submitted by the Railway Administration, challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order, dated 5/2/2016, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, which is impugned in the appeal.

(2.) When the matter is taken up for hearing, at the outset, without entering into any other issues, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Railway Administration wanted to cross-examine the witness and the original applicant. However, on account of closure pursis having been given by the learned advocate for the applicant, such right has not been extended to the appellant and, therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the Railway Tribunal for the purpose of cross-examining the applicant. Learned advocate has submitted that this is in view of the fact that there is a disputed version coming out from the DRM report. As a result of this, cross-examination of the original applicant is evidently essential. While substantiating this contention, learned advocate has relied upon two decisions delivered by coordinate bench of this Court in FA No.518 of 2016 dated 22.11.2018 and in FA No.719 of 2017 dated 11.12.2018 respectively and has pointed out that the Court, after considering this circumstance, has remanded the matter back to the Tribunal.

(3.) To meet with this circumstance, Mr.P.J.Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent, has submitted that even after granting cross-examination, no new material is coming out, is likely to come out and this would unnecessarily delay the proceedings. In fact, the DRM report is evidently clear that the claimant was travelling and sustained the injuries. As a result of this, learned advocate has submitted that cross-examination is not necessary. However, learned advocate could not withstand to the decisions delivered by the coordinate bench of this Court, as referred to above, in which for this limited issue of cross-examination, the matter came to be remanded back to the Railway Tribunal. Learned advocate has ultimately left the matter to the discretion of the Court.