FA/116019/1997 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1160 of 1997 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ====================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================================== UNION OF INDIA - Appellant(s) Versus CHANDANBEN MANSUKHLAL SHETH & 2 - Defendant(s) ====================================================== Appearance : MS REETA CHANDARANA for Appellant(s) : 1, MS SRUSHTI A THULA for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3. ====================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 28th FA/116019/1997 2/3 JUDGMENT February 1997 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in Claim Application No.T.A.9600003 whereby the said application was allowed and directed the present appellant to pay Rs.2 lacs to the respondents herein with running interest at the rate of 12% from 1.8.1994 till payment. 2. One Chandrakant Mansukhlal Sheth was traveling in a Train from Ahmedabad to Songadh on 11/12th November1985. When he was alighting from the train at Songadh Railway Station, he fell down and succumbed to injuries sustained by him. Therefore his legal heirs filed filed Civil Suit No.161/88 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar claiming compensation which was later on transferred to Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad and was renumbered as TA- 9600003. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present appeal. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary and submitted that the accident had happened prior to the Amendment Act and that section 124 of the Railway Act was not in force at that time. 4. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter including the provisions of Railway Act, 1989. There is no dispute about the factum of the accident which is evident from the Inquest Report prepared by the police and produced at Exh.33. After considering the provisions of section 124 of the Act the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there can be no bar in giving retrospective effect to the amended provisions of the Railway Act, 1989. The Tribunal has also relied upon a decision in the case of Vijayshankar Vs. Union of India and others, FA/116019/1997 3/3 JUDGMENT reported in 1995(2) TAC 664, Kerala, wherein also in similar circumstances compensation has been awarded to the claimants. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant is not able to point out anything from the record to take a contrary view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI,J.] ar