JUDGEMENT
Swatanter Kumar, CJ -
(1.)The petitioner in this petition, Mr. R. S. Keluskar, who is an
advocate practising in the Railway Claims Tribunal at Mumbai, filed a
claim application before that Tribunal on behalf of one Mr. Jayesh
Sharad Bhavsar. This claim application was contested on behalf of
the Railway. It was stated in the claim application that the claimant
had fallen down from the local train and fingers of his right leg came
below the wheel of the local train resulting in permanent partial
disablement. In these circumstances he claimed the compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/-.Areplywasfiledwhereinitwasstated thattheaccident
in question was not an untoward incident within the meaning of
Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as he had trespassed on the
track and not fallen from the train. It was further stated that the
applicant is put to strict proof thereof.
(2.)This claim application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its
order dated 6th February, 2006, which reads as under:
"A perusal of record shows that appearance of the
Counsel for the Applicant is highly irregular since long
and is causing delay in the disposal. Sufficient
concession has been granted to him on the ground that
he has filed a PIL in the Honourable High Court.
However, the Applicant has brought nothing to our
notice that there is any stay of proceedings or any
direction has been issued to this Tribunal.
The claim application is, therefore, dismissed in
default."
(3.)The petitioner has filed this petition in his own capacity
without signature of the Claimant or appropriate authority to him to
file the present petition, claiming the following reliefs :
(i)
To issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction of the same nature in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India;
(ii)
To award compensation of Rs.6,28,992.00 including
50% penalty and 12% interest for the 7 years.
(iii)
To set aside the dismissal order of the trial court n
original claim application no. 109/2000 before the
Railways Claims Tribunal at Mumbai.
(iv)
To issue order in respect of Section 123(c)(2) which
includes catching of the train as per definition clause
2(31)(b).
(v)
To act like a mini Parliament and strike down Section
124A (a),(b),(c),(d) and (e).
(vi)
To grant such further and other reliefs as may be
found necessary in the circumstances of the case; and
(vii)
To award costs.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.