Bombay High Court
SAUMINI ALEX WIFE OF LATE ALEX GEORGE AND ORSversusUNION OF INDIA THR THE GEN. MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Tribunal's order rejecting the amendment application is quashed and set aside, and the petitioners are directed to amend the cause title and receive the Rs.8 Lakhs compensation.
Summary
The petitioners, a widowed senior citizen and family, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to compel the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) to update their address in the record of OA No.1061/2014 so that a compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs, awarded on 21 December 2023, could be released. The Tribunal had rejected their amendment application filed on 12 July 2024, citing the petitioners' failure to amend the original claim since 2014. The High Court examined the rejection, noting that the petitioners had earlier filed applications in 2023 reflecting the correct Bangalore address and that the rejection was a hyper‑technical exercise. The Court held that the Tribunal should have allowed the amendment and that the petitioners could not be deprived of their compensation on mere procedural grounds. Accordingly, the Court quashed the Tribunal’s order, directed the petitioners to amend the cause title within a week, submit address proof, and thereafter release the Rs.8 Lakhs compensation.
Issues considered
- Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioners' amendment application for change of address on technical grounds.
- Whether the Tribunal's order rejecting the amendment can be quashed and the compensation released to the petitioners.
- Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel the Tribunal to update the address and disburse the awarded compensation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ of Mandamus
- Railway Claims Tribunal
- Amendment of address
- Compensation award
- Technical rejection
- Senior citizen
- Quash order
Judgment
24-OSWP-17697-2024.DOC
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
PALLAVI WARGAONKAR
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.08.04
11:09:39
+0530
Pallavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.17697 OF 2024
Saumini Alex Wife Of Late Alex George And Ors. …Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India Thr The Gen. Manager, Central …Respondents
Railway And Anr.
Mr Ryan Pongathara, a/w Sanskar Sharma for the Petitioners.
Mr Niranjan Shimpi, for the Respondents.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED: 22nd JULY 2026
Order (Per : Advait M. Sethna, J.) :-
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the
consent of the parties.
2. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The Petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to be issued
against the Respondent No.2 i.e. Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai
(“Tribunal” for short) directing them to update the current address
of the Petitioners in the record of the OA No.1061/2014. This is so
as to enable the Petitioners to receive the compensation of Rs. 8
Lakhs which was granted by the Tribunal vide Judgment and Order
dated 21st December 2023. However, the same could not be availed
by the Petitioners because the Tribunal had rejected a subsequent
Page 1 of 6
24-OSWP-17697-2024.DOC
Miscellaneous Application dated 12th July 2024 filed by the
Petitioners seeking amendment in the cause title for change of
address (“Amendment Application” for short).
3. The Petitioners had claimed compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs
from the Tribunal in the Original Claim Application which was
disposed of, by allowing the same in favour of the Petitioners vide
Judgment and Order of the Tribunal dated 21st December 2023.
4. After the disposal of the Original Claim Application, there
appears to be a change in the address of the Petitioners. Be that as
it may. As such, Application for Amendment was moved by the
Petitioners before the Tribunal for incorporating the change of
address of the Petitioners from the Mumbai address to the new
address at Banglore. The details thereof, are set out in the
Amendment Application dated 12 th July 2024 filed by the
Petitioners before the Tribunal.
5. Pursuant to the above, the Tribunal passed the order dated
25th July 2024 rejecting the Amendment Application. The Tribunal
therein observed that despite sufficient opportunity available to the
Petitioners during the pendency of the Original Claim Application,
the Petitioners did not take requisite steps for making necessary
amendments to the Original Application pending since 2014. This
led to rejection of the Petitioners’ Amendment Application dated
12th July 2024.
Page 2 of 6
24-OSWP-17697-2024.DOC
6. In the above factual backdrop, the Petitioners have preferred
this present Petition praying for immediate release of the said
compensation of Rs. 8 Lakhs in their favour.
7. Mr. Ryan Pongathara, learned counsel for the Petitioners
would submit that the Tribunal erred in not taking on record the
Amendment Application of the Petitioners dated 12 th July 2024 and
rejecting the same. Such rejection was purely on technical grounds.
The Petitioners, by such Application, only desired a change in the
address of the Petitioners in the cause title, substituting their
Mumbai address with the new address at Bangalore. He would
submit that the Petitioners, being lay persons, were not aware of
such formalities and were not informed about the same by their
erstwhile Advocates. It was for such reasons that, there was some
delay in preferring the Amendment Application. It, therefore,
ought not to have been treated adversely against the Petitioners in
the given facts and circumstances. He would, therefore, urge that
the subsequent order of the Tribunal dated 25 th July 2024 be
quashed and set aside.
8. Mr. Niranjan Shimpi, learned counsel for the Respondents
has attempted to defend the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal
dated 25th July 2024 by submitting that the Tribunal is expected to
follow certain procedures/rules while granting the compensation
to the Petitioners, which, he would submit, is mandated under the
provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (“ RCT Act” for
short). However, Mr. Shimpi would fairly agree that since the
compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs has already been granted in favour of
Page 3 of 6
24-OSWP-17697-2024.DOC
the Petitioners by the Tribunal vide its Judgment and Order dated
21st December 2023, hence, in the fitness of things, the said
amount ought to be released by the Tribunal in favour of the
Petitioners, subject to providing sufficient proof of address and
other particulars.
9. We have noted the submission of the learned counsel and
with their assistance, we have perused the record.
10. There is no dispute about the fact that the Tribunal has
granted compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs in favour of the Petitioners, in
its Judgment and Order dated 21 st December 2023. The same
holds the field as on date.
11. On perusal of the subsequent order of the Tribunal dated
25th July 2024, it appears that the Tribunal has rejected the claim
of the Petitioners pursuant to the filing an Amendment Application
by the Petitioners. This is primarily on the ground that despite
sufficient opportunity available to them during the pendency of the
Claim Application, the Petitioners did not take steps in this regard.
This is more particularly considering that the Original Application
was pending since 2014. The approach of the Tribunal in rejecting
the Amendment Application of the Petitioners dated 12 th July 2024
vide its order dated 25th July 2024, appears to be hyper technical.
12. Moreover, noting the submissions of the learned counsel for
the Petitioners and on perusal of the record, it bears out that two
Applications dated 28th March 2023 and 27th June 2023 were filed
on behalf the Petitioners, which reflected the new address of the
Page 4 of 6
24-OSWP-17697-2024.DOC
Petitioners at Bangalore. However, it appears that no cognizance of
change in address was taken. The opposite party has not disputed
the fact, that pursuant to thir re-location at Bangalore, this new
address furnished by the Petitioners was correct and authentic.
13. In the facts and circumstance of the case, we are therefore,
of the view that the Tribunal should have allowed the Amendment
Application dated 12th July 2024 by permitting the Petitioners to
make necessary amendments in the cause title of Original
Application so as to bring on record the new address of the
Petitioners at Bangalore by substituting their old address at
Mumbai.
14. The Petitioner No.1 being a widowed Senior Citizen cannot
be deprived of this rightful compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs despite
having a favourable order of the Tribunal in the Original
Application dated 21st December 2023, merely on technical
grounds as recorded in the subsequent order dated 25th July 2024.
15. Considering the above, we pass the following order which in
our view would meet the ends of justice.
ORDER
(i) The order of the Tribunal passed in
MA/MCC/164/2024 dated 25th July 2024 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Tribunal is directed to allow the Petitioners to
make necessary amendments to the cause title of
the Original Application through their
Page 5 of 6
24-OSWP-17697-2024.DOC
Advocate/Counsel, within a period of one week
from the date of the presenting this order to the
Tribunal.
(iii) The Petitioners through their Advocate/Counsel
shall approach the Tribunal/its Registry within a
period of three weeks from the date of uploading of
this order along with the requisite address proof
including Pan Card or Aadhar Card to facilitate
verification. It is thereafter that the amount of
compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs be released in favour of
the Petitioners in terms of the order dated 21 st
December 2023 passed by the Tribunal.
(iv) The Registry of the Tribunal is expected to act with
utmost despatch, within the timelines as directd
above.
(v) The Petition is Disposed Of in the above terms. No
costs.
(vi) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of
this order.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
Page 6 of 6
Checking your session…