Shripatsingh Baijnath Yadav & Anr. v. Union of India
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
Appeal is partly allowed on above terms with no
Provisions considered
Judgment
Shripatsingh Baijnath Yadav and anr. ... Appellants Versus Union of India. ... Respondent Mr. Shrishailya Deshmukh i/b Mr.Pravin B. Gole for the Appellants. Mr. T.J.Pandian for the Respondent. ----- ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15th July, 2011. P.C. 1 Admit. Advocate for the Respondent waives service. Immediately, taken up for final hearing. 2 The Appellants filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal by invoking Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The claim application has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the Appellants could not establish that the deceased was holding a valid ticket. The Tribunal observed that though the Appellants have contended that the deceased had purchased a return 2 54 fa.1266.11 ticket at Dadar Railway Station in presence of his co-worker Mr.Rajan Dinesh Singh, the said co-worker has not been examined as a witness.
Therefore, the Tribunal disbelieved the case of the Appellants that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that an opportunity may be granted to the Appellants to examine the said witness Mr.Rajan Dinesh Singh to enable them to establish their claim. His submission is that the burden was on the Respondent to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment and order. 4 The Tribunal has dismissed the claim application by drawing adverse inference against the Appellants for not examining the said witness. An opportunity deserves to be granted to the Appellants to examine the said witness and therefore, an order of remand deserves to be passed. 3 54 fa.1266.11 5 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned judgment and order dated 27th April, 2009 is quashed and set aside and Case No.
Operative part
OA 631 of 2004 is restored to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, at Mumbai ; ii. The Appellants are permitted to adduce further evidence including the examination of the said witness Mr.Rajan Dinesh Singh. It is obvious that even the Respondent is entitled to adduce evidence in rebuttal ; iii. The Tribunal will decide the claim application afresh after considering the evidence, which is already adduced and the evidence adduced after the remand ; iv. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open ; and v. Appeal is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs.
[ A.S.OKA, J ]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is partly allowed on above terms with no
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Railways Act, 1989.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Jul 2011. The bench was A S OKA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.