LALITHA BAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, is a resident of Maradu village in Ernakulam District She travelled from Ernakulam junction to Renigunta, holding a II Class Railway ticket from Ernakulam junction to Tirupati, breaking her journey at Renigunta on 29-5-89. When the petitioner tried to get into the train she fell between the train and the platform and was injured. She filed O.ANo.118/90 claiming compensation of Rs. One lakh in the Railways Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Bench by the order dated 12-4-91 returned her petition for presentation before proper Bench, holding that it has no territorial jurisdiction and that the Railways Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

(2.) Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a petition before the Railways Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench. The Tribunal at Secunderabad returned her application No.OAA 48/91 holding that it has no competency to take up adjudication of the claim as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Sec.13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is confined only to claims of compensation payable under Sec.82-A of the Railways Act, 1890 or Rules made thereunder (since repealed by the Railways Act, 1989), inasmuch as the accident to the petitioner is not due to any train accident. The petitioner filed a review petition before the Tribunal at Secunderabad which was also rejected by the order dated 16-7-91. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal at Secunderabad, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) The petition is mainly opposed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner failed to avail the alternative remedy available under Sec.23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (Tribunal Acf, for short). It is also contended for the respondent that the Tribunal at Secunderabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and that it is open to the petitioner to move a civil court of competent jurisdiction. On the merits of the case, the respondent contended that there was no negligence on the part of the railways the mishap occurred only on account of the negligence of petitioner while getting into the moving train and that the mishap is not the result of any accident to the train.