UNION OF INDIA Vs. NALINI PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") filed by the Union of India represented through the General Manager, East Coast Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, challenging the award dated 26th September, 2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 70 of 2004 whereby it awarded a sum of Rs. 4 lacs to the claimant-respondent with an interest of 3% from the date of filing of the application, failing which the interest will be payable @ 5%.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) Receiving notice from the Tribunal the appellant-Railway Authorities filed their written statement denying that the incident as alleged by the claimant had not taken place at Bhubaneswar Railway Station on 29th January, 2003. The claimant was not a passenger in Train No. 212-DN, Puri-Sambalpur Passenger and she was not injured in the train accident at the railway station because the accident did not come to the notice of either guard/driver of the train or the station employees and no information in connection with the alleged incident was available either with the working guard and driver or with the on-duty Station Master, Bhubaneswar nor was it within the knowledge of or reported before the Railway Police or R.P.F. Personnel at the Bhubaneswar Railway Station. The documents attached to the claim application were no way connected to prove the untoward incident to have taken place at the Bhubaneswar Railway Station premises. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation under the provision of the Act and they have stated that the application was filed on 28th September, 2004, more than one year seven months and twenty nine days after the alleged untoward incident and in any case, about eight months after the limitation period of one year prescribed under Section 16 of the Act had set in, for which no sufficient cause had been shown by the claimant for condonation of each day's delay after 28th January, 2004, the last date by which the claim became so barred. Under such facts and circumstances mentioned above, the appellant before the Tribunal asserted that the claim application was devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.