1 FH fa.2587.05 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2587 OF 2005 Jyoti Gopal Marcherla, age 53 years, Residing at Rukmabai Chawl, Room No.6, Khadegolewali, Vitthalwadi (E) Thane. ... Appellant Versus Union of India, through the General Manager, Central Railway, CST, Mumbai. ... Respondent ----- None for the Appellant. Mr. A.N.Samant for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22 nd March, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 None appears for the Appellant. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2 The Appellant filed a claim petition under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Railways Act”) claiming compensation on account of the death of her husband in the 2 FH fa.2587.05 alleged untoward incident on 11 th August, 2002. By the impugned order, the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application. 3 The case of the Appellant was that on 11 th August, 2002, her husband was travelling by a suburban train from Mumbai CST Railway Station to Vitthalwadi. When the train reached near Byculla Railway Station, the deceased fell down accidentally and died on the spot. 4 The perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed on a date fixed for framing of issues. Perusal of the order shows that the Tribunal perused the averments made in the claim petition and the documents on record. The Tribunal referred to the report of the station master, which recorded that unknown person was knocked down by an unknown local train. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by holding that it was not a case of accident fall. 5 When the impugned order was passed, the stage of recording of evidence had not reached and in fact, the claim petition was for settlement of issues. None of the documents were proved by any of 3 FH fa.2587.05 the parties. There was no opportunity made available to the Appellant to lead oral evidence. 6 The approach of the Members of the learned Claims Tribunal is completely illegal. By giving complete go-bye to the regular procedure, the claim petition was dismissed. Therefore, the only course open for this Court is to set aside the impugned order and to remand the claim petition for consideration in accordance with law. 7 Hence, I pass the following order: I The impugned judgment and order dated 5 th January, 2005 is quashed and set aside and the Case No. OA/2003/350 is remanded for fresh decision of the Claims Tribunal. II The Railway Claims Tribunal shall frame issues and thereafter, allow the parties to adduce evidence in accordance with law ; III The claim petition shall be decided as expeditiously 4 FH fa.2587.05 as possible ; IV All contentions of the parties on merit of the claim petition are kept open ; V The appeal is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]