UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHITRALEKHA TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Anil Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri C. B Pandey learned Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No. 5.

(2.) THE petitioner which is Union of India is aggrieved against the order dated 21. 1. 1999 passed by IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow in Original Suit No. 130 of 1993 Smt. Chitra Lekha Tripathi and othors v. Union of India and others.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents had filed a suit for compensation to the extent of Rs. 30,00,000/- from Railways due to death of Harendra Nath Tripathi in Seyaldah Express wherefrom he had fallen out of the train and died. The accident occurred on 8. 1. 1989 and the suit was filed on 23. 1. 1990 before the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow (as a pauper ). The Trial Court proceeded to frame as many as four issues and had decreed the suit of the defendants for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- plus interest by the impugned judgment and order. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the provision of section 15 read with section 24 and section 28 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred and all matters pending before the Civil Court with respect to claims as defined under section 123 of the Act would be transferred to the Claims Tribunal and as such the Civil Court would ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with the suit or entertain a fresh suit. The first contention is, therefore, that the impugned order which has been passed after the amendment of the Act by Act No. 28 of 1994 with effect from 1. 8. 1994 could not have been passed by the Civil Court which had ceased to have jurisdiction with respect to the suit for compensation. He further contends that the impugned order being without jurisdiction in view of the aforesaid amendment the petitioners were not required to file any appeal as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure as in the case of a decree in a regular suit and that even the appeal, if filed, would not confer any jurisdiction upon the Court.