ANIL KUMAR CHATURVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ambrish Rai learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This First Appeal From Order under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act as well as under Chapter 9 of the High Court Rules has been filed against the order dtd. 6/7/2018 passed in Case no.O.A/II/U/979/11; Anil Kumar Chaturvedi vs Union of India by Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by means of which the petition has been returned to the appellant as the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as Tribunal) has no jurisdiction to try the case and the tribunal at Gorakhpur has jurisdiction.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim petition was filed in the year, 2011 and it has been returned after 7 years, whereas in case, the tribunal was of the view that the tribunal concerned has no jurisdiction then it could have been returned at the threshold by the Registrar. He further submits that as per Rule 8 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, the application for compensation can also be filed where the claimant normally resides, therefore, the claim petition is maintainable before the tribunal at Lucknow also because the appellant normally resides at Lucknow. In this regard, the applicant had filed a certificate issued by the Corporator to the effect that the appellant resides at Bahadurpur, P.S-Gudamba, Kursi Road, Lucknow, but it has been discarded only on the ground that the appellant could not file the copy of the gas connection, electricity bill, receipt of the house etc, whereas it is not required, once, the certificate of the Corporator was filed. As such, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside with a direction to the tribunal concerned to decide the claim petition expeditiously. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment and order dtd. 12/7/2018 passed in FAFO no.767 of 2012 (Pankaj Kumar vs Union of India).