SHAKILA ILIYAS TAMBOLIversusUNION OF INDIA (THR GEN. MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUMBAI

                                                                             -WP-9323-2024-J.DOC




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 9323 OF 2026


                    Shakila Iliyas Tamboli,
                    Age 55 years, Occupation – Household,
                    R/o Naydongri, Aher Galli,
                    Nandgaon, Dist Nashik.                                      ...Petitioner

                          Versus

                    Union of India (Through Gen Manager,
                    Central Railway, Mumbai)                                  ...Respondent

                    Mr. Pritesh Bohade, for the Petitioner.
                    Adv Nisha Valani, for the Respondent.

                                                 CORAM:         N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                 DATE :         21st SEPTEMBER 2026




                    JUDGMENT:

                   1.     Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
                   the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
Digitally signed
by ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.28
                   2.     This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in
18:22:30 +0530



                   question the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 31 st

                   January 2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, on an

                   Application for allocation of share of Applicant No.1 in Claim




                    ARS                                   1/6
                                                            -WP-9323-2024-J.DOC

Application No. OA (II U)/MCC/2016/0271, awarded by judgment

dated 14th August 2024, to the Petitioner-Applicant No.2, therein.

3.     Imran Iliyas Tamboli (the deceased) was the son of Petitioner

and Iliyas Tamboli (Applicant No.1).

4.     The Petitioner and Applicant No.1 had filed an Application under

Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (“the Act, 1987”)

for compensation arising out of an alleged untoward incident resulting

in the death of Imran.

5.     By a judgment and order dated 14th August 2024, the Claims

Tribunal allowed the Claim Application and directed the Respondent to

pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the Applicant as compensation. Applicant

No.1 Iliyas and the Petitioner were awarded an equal share in the said

compensation amount.

6.     The   Petitioner   preferred    the    instant   Application   seeking

modification in the said order with the assertion that Iliyas, the father of

the deceased and husband of the Petitioner, passed away on 13 th May

2023, during the pendency of the Application. However, the Petitioner

being an illiterate lady did not inform her Advocate about the said fact

as she was not aware of the name and contact details of the Advocate

since her deceased husband was prosecuting the Application. As

Applicant No.1 has passed away, the Petitioner be paid the share

allocated to Applicant No.1 also.


 ARS                                    2/6
                                                        -WP-9323-2024-J.DOC

7.     By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the Application

opining that the judgment cannot be modified or corrected, as sought by

the Petitioner, since modification sought by the Petitioner was not in the

nature of a clerical error.

8.     Mr. Pritesh Bohade, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

submitted that the Tribunal was in error in observing that the judgment

cannot be modified or corrected. It was submitted that since the Tribunal

has already awarded the compensation in terms of the provisions

contained in Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (“the Act, 1989”),

the Tribunal could not have rejected the prayer to modify the order so as

to release the entire quantum of compensation in favour of the Petitioner

who is indisputably a dependent of the deceased, who was unmarried.

9.     Ms. Nisha Valani, the learned Counsel for the Respondent

supported the impugned order. It was submitted that there is no

provision to modify the final judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal.

10.    Evidently, the Claims Tribunal while allowing the Application has

returned a finding that the Petitioner-Applicant No.2 and deceased Iliyas

(Applicant No.1) were dependent of the deceased and, thus, awarded

the compensation in equal share.

11.    In view of the provisions contained in Section 123 (b) of the Act,

1989, in case the deceased passenger is unmarried, his parent(s) become

the dependent (s). Even if the fact that Applicant No.1, Iliyas had passed


 ARS                                  3/6
                                                           -WP-9323-2024-J.DOC

away, was brought to the notice of the Claims Tribunal, during the

pendency of the Claim Application, the Petitioner-Applicant No.2, in her

capacity as the dependent of the deceased could have legitimately

pursued the claim for compensation. In that event, the Petitioner would

have been entitled to award of compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-, solely.

12.     It is trite, in view of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the

Act, 1987, the Claims Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down

by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) but shall be guided by

the principles of natural justice and is also empowered to regulate its

own procedure. Yet, Sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of the Act, 1987,

empowers the Tribunal to exercise the power as are vested in a Civil

Court under the Code, in respect of specified matters including

reviewing is decisions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Claims

Tribunal is completely denuded of the power to embark upon an exercise

of substantive review as distinguished from procedural review.

13.     In a situation of this nature, the Claims Tribunal could have

exercised the power analogous to the power under Section 152 of the

Code.

14.     A profitable reference in this context can be made to the decision

of the Supreme Court in the decision of Niyamat Ali Molla Vs Sonargaon

Cooperative Housing Society1 wherein it was enunciated that Section

152 of the Code empowers the Court to correct its own error in a

 1      AIR 2008 SC 225.
 ARS                                    4/6
                                                            -WP-9323-2024-J.DOC

judgment, decree or order from any accidental slip or omission. The

principle behind the said provision is actus curiae nemenim gravabit, i.e.

nobody will be prejudiced by an act of Court. The Code recognizes the

inherent power of the Court. It is not only confined to the amendment of

the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of Code but also

inherent power in general. The Courts also have duty to see that the

records are true and present the correct state of affair.

15.    In the said case, the Supreme Court referred to a previsous

judgment in the case of Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan Vs Hari Prasad Bhuyan

and Ors2 wherein it was enunciated that Section 152 of the Code enables

the Court to vary its judgments so as to give effect to its meaning and

intention.

16.    Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the case, this

Court finds that the Petitioner could have prosecuted the claim

application in her capacity as the dependent of the deceased, in her own

right, and in that event would have been entitled to the compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/-, even if Iliyas (Applicant No.1) passed away during the

pendency of the Claim Application. If that is the case, the Claims

Tribunal could not have rejected the Application by observing that it had

no power to correct the final judgment and order, especially in view of

the provisions contained in Section 18(3) (f) of the Act, 1987.

17.    The Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.

 2            (2003) 1 SCC 197.
 ARS                                    5/6
                                                          -WP-9323-2024-J.DOC

18.     Hence, the following order:

                                :ORDER:

       (i)     The Petition stands allowed.

       (ii)    The impugned order dated 31st January 2025 stands

       quashed and set aside.

       (iii)   The Misc Application No. OA (IIu)/MCC/271/2016,

       stands allowed.

       (iv)    The Claims Tribunal shall carry out the necessary

       amendment in the judgment and order dated 14 th August 2024

       so as to pay/release the amount of compensation allocated to

       the deceased Applicant No.1 also, to the Petitioner -Applicant

       No.2.

       (v)     Such necessary amendment be made within a period of

       30 days from the date of communication of this order.

       (vi)    Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

       No costs.

                                        [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




 ARS                                   6/6