ata 1 fa.103.90 judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.103 of 1990 The General Manager,Indian Railways (Central) Bombay ... Appellant vs. 1) Shri. S. L. Sharma 2) The Union of India,Ministry of Railways, Delhi 3) The Director, Central Service of Army Services Corps, New Delhi ...Respondents ________ Mr. A. N. Samant, for the Appellant. Mr. Ashok Tajane, for the Respondent No.1 CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: By this Appeal, the General Manager, Indian Railways (Central) Bombay has taken an exception to the judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 1989 passed by the Learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge- Senior Division, Pune in the suit filed by the 1st Respondent. 2 The 1st Respondent is a Military Personnel. The 1st Respondent was issued movement order dated 25th August, 1982 by which he was directed to take delivery of Tanker lorries at Kirki. There was another movement order issued to the 1st Respondent to return to Delhi. Accordingly, after taking delivery of the vehicles at Kirki, the 1st ata 2 fa.103.90 judgment Respondent was accompanying the vehicles by military goods train. On 11th February, 1983 in the mid night, the accident occurred when wagon in which 1st Respondent was travelling and other wagons carrying vehicle were side tracked. On the morning of 12th February, 1983, while shunting, as a result of sudden jerk, 1st Respondent fell down and both of his legs came under the wheel of the train. He sustained serious injuries. In the court of enquiry, there was a finding recorded that 1st Respondent sustained serious injuries due to an accident which occurred during performance of his duties. It was held that he had no control over the accident. A total claim for compensation of Rs.9 lacs was made by the 1st Respondent in the Suit filed by him. 3 The present Appellant was the second Defendant in the Suit. The Union of India was first Defendant and the Director,Central service of Army Services Crops was the third Defendant. The 1st respondent sought joint and several decree against all the three Defendants. 4 A Written Statement was filed by the Appellant. A specific stand was taken that the General Manager of Railway administration is not a juridical person or legal entity to represent the Railway administration. It was, therefore, contended that the suit as framed and filed against the General Manager was not maintainable. Apart from denying various factual averments made in the plaint, the Appellant contended ata 3 fa.103.90 judgment that the Defence Ministry has indemnified the Railway administration against any claim on account of death or injury to Defence Services Personnel travelling as escorts by goods trains. Therefore, it was contended that the suit be dismissed. The Trial Court held that an accident occurred due to negligence of Railway staff and the accident occurred during the course of employment of 1st Respondent. A decree was passed in the sum of Rs.7,33,750/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. 5 The submission of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant is that at highest the 1st Respondent could have claimed compensation from his employer. He submitted that there was a indemnity given by Military Administration. He submitted that the suit against the General Manager of Railway administration was not maintainable. He submitted that there could not have been a decree both against Union of India and the Appellant. 6 The Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent relied upon the definition of Railway Administration in Sub-section(6) of Section 3 of Indian Railways Act, 1890( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1890”) and contended that the General Manager of a Railway represents the Railway administration and the Suit for compensation against him was maintainable. He submitted that the ata 4 fa.103.90 judgment case of negligence on the part of the Railway administration has been established. 7 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The first issue is regarding maintainability of the Suit against the Appellant( General Manager) of Indian Railways (Central). The issue is no more res- integra. In the case of The State of Kerala v/s General Manager Sadan Railway (Madras) (1976) 4 SCC 265, the Apex Court held that the definition of the Railway administration under Sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1890 does not make the General Manager of a Railway as a legal entity or a corporate body or juridical person to represent Railway administration as such. The Apex Court also noted that notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was required to be issued to the General Manager of the Railways. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the Apex Court reiterated that status of juridical person has not been conferred on a General Manager of Railway administration for the purposes of filing Civil Suit. 8 In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the Suit as against the Appellant was not maintainable. There is no Appeal preferred by Union of India. Therefore, the Appeal will have to be allowed in part and the decree passed against the Appellant will have to be quashed and set aside. Hence, I pass the following ata 5 fa.103.90 judgment order: ORDER i) The impugned judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 1989 is modified and it is directed that the Suit filed by the 1st Respondent stands dismissed as against the Appellant (original Defendant No.2). ii) Rest of the decree stands confirmed. iii) The Appeal is partly allowed on above terms, with no orders as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )