AA. HAJA MUNIUDDINversusINDIAN RAILWAYS

                                    c ,

A                               AA. HAJA MUNIUDDIN
                                           v.
                                    INDIAN RAILWAYS

                                    NOVEMBER 17, 1992

B                    [A.M. AHMADI AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.]

         Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987-Section 16(2), and Rule 6 of the
    Railway Clainis Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989-Claim petition-Fee-Ap-
   plicability of Order XXXIII, CPC-Indigent person-Wliether can claim-
C · Claims Tribunal's power in regulating procedure.
         Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder XXXIII-lndigent person-
    Whether can claim under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. 1987..

          The appellant dispatched marble slabs by rail under railway risk.
D The marble slabs reached the destination in broken condition.
    ,.    The appellant moved a claim petition for Rs. 1,05,000 before the
    Railway (;)aims Tribunal established under the Railway Claims Tribunal
    Act, 1987. Under Section 16(2) of the Act r/w Rule 6 of the Railway ~laims
    Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, the appellant was required to pay a fee
E   of Rs. 2,055 on the claim application. The. appellant did not have the
    means to pay the requisite fee. He paid a fee of Rs. 150 on the application
    and prayed· that he be permitted to prosecute the claim as an indigent
    person.
                 .    . .   ~



         The Tribuna~ held. th~t Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure
F   had no application to claims under the Act and rejected his prayer.

         Again~t the, order of the Tribunal, the present appeal by special leave
    was p~fe~red to thfs~ Co.urt.

G         On the question,' whether an indigent person who was not possessed
    of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed under Section
    16(2) of .the Railway Claims Tribunal Act cc;mld be permitted to prefer his
    claim as an indigent person under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil
    Procedure; allowing the appeal, this Court,

H        -HELD: l.L Nowher~ ·in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is
                                '
                                           72
            AA HAJA MUNIUDDIN. v. INDIAN RAILWAYS                           73

there any provision which runs counter to or is inconsistent with the A
provisions of Order XXXIll of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Although
the Act and the Rules do not specifically provide for the application of
Order XXXlll of the Code, there is nothing in the Act or the Rules which
precludes the Tribunal from following that procedure if the ends of justice
so require. (78-GJ
                                                                                  B
      1.2. The Tribunal has the power to lay down its own procedure.
Section 18(1) does not preclude it from invoking the provisions of Order
XXXIII of the Code if the ends of justice so require. When an indigent
person approaches the Tribunal for compensation for the wrong done to
him, the Tribunal cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely because he        c
does not haH! the means to pay the fee. [79-H, 80-A]

     1.3. Access to justice cannot be denied to an individual merely
because he does not have the means to pay the prescribed fee. Such a view
would leave indigent persons without a remedy. [79-CJ
                                                                                  D
      1.4. The provisions of the Act and the Rules must be broadly inter-
preted to ensure access to justice. If a ·claimant is left without redress even
if he has a valid claim against the railway administration merely because
he is an indigent person, it would be a sad day and the poor will lose
confidence in the system. [79-D]
                                                                                  E
      1.5. Section 18(1) only says that the Claims Tribunal 'shall not be
bound' by the procedure laid down by the Code but does not g<> so far as
to say that it 'shall be precluded' from invoking the provisions laid down
by the Code even if the same are not inconsistent with the Act and the
Rules. [79-EJ                                                                     F

      1.6. The Tribunal adopted a narrow interpretation of the relevant
provisions of the Act in coming to (he conclusion that the Act as well as
the Rules did not permit invocation of Order XXXIII of the Code. The view
taken by the Tribunal results in a person not having the means to pay the         G
fee prescribed for preferring a claim being left with<mt a remedy. Such a
view would result in gross injustice. [79-G]

      1.7. In tae present case, the ends of justice require that the Tribunal
should follow the procedure laid down in Order XXXIll of the Code to do
justice for which it came to be established. (80-8]                               H
      74                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

I\_           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4865 of
      1992.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.1990 of the Madras High
      Court in C.R.P; No. 2064of1990.•

3             Ms. Sandhya Ramachandra for the Appellant.

           Dr. Anand Prakash, Hemant Sharma, V.K. Verma and R Krishna
      Prasad for the Respondent.

              The Judgment of the· Court was delivered by

              AHMADI, J. Special leave granted.

            The short question which arises for determination in this appeal is
      whether an indig~nt person who is not possessed of sufficient means to
      enable .him to pay the fee prescribed by Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of
)     the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter called 'the Act') can
      be permitted to prefer his claim as an indigent· person on the principle
      embodied in order XXXIII of· the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
      (hereinafter called 'the Code'). The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are
      as under.

             The appellant despatched marble slabs from Makrana Railway Sta-
      tion for carriage by rail under railway risk to Ramanathapuram. The wagon
      carrying the marble slabs met with an accident. The marble slabs reached
       the station of destination in broken pieces. Treating the damage as a total
      loss, the appellant preferred a claim for Rs. 1,05,000 before the Railway
      Claims Tribunal established under Section 3 of the Act. The appellant was
       required to pay a fee of Rs. 2,055 on the said claim- application under
      Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Railway
       Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,.1989 {hereinafter called 'the Rules').
       However, since the appellant did not have the mearis to pay the requisite
 ..., fee, he lodged the claim-application on a fee of Rs.' 150 only and prayed
 3
       that he may be permitted to prosecute the claim 'as an indigent ·person. The
      Tribunal however, came to the conclusion that since Order XXXIII of the
      Code had no application to claims preferred under the provisions of the
      Act, the appellant cannot be permitted to prosecute the application as
      such. The Tribunal, therefore, spurned the appellant's request. It is against
 1 the said order of the Tribunal that· the present appeal by special leave has
     A.A.HAJAMUNIUDDIN. v. INDIAN RAILWAYS [AHMADI,J.]                   75

been brought to this Court.                                                    A
       In order to appreciate the contention urged before us it would be
advantageous to bear in mind the scheme of the Act. The Act was enacted
to inter alia provide for the establishment of a Railway Claims Tribunal for
enquiring into and determining claims against the railway administration
for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods          B
entrusted to it to be carried by railways and for matters connected there-
with or incidental thereto. Section 3 provides for the establishment of a
Railway Claims Tribunal. Section 13 which confers jurisdiction reads as
under:

         "13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.
                                                                               c
         - (1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the
         appointed day, all such jurisdiCtion, powers and· authority
         as were execisable immediately before that day by any civil
         court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under th~
         provisions of the Railways Act, -                                     D
         (a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administra-
             tion as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act
             in respect of claims for -

         (i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deteriora-            E
             tion or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to
             a railway administration for carriage by railway;

         (ii) compensation payable under Section 82-A of the Rail-
              ways Act or the rules made thereunder;. and
                                                                               F
         (b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part
            thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of
            animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration
            to be carried by railway.
                                                                               G
         (2) The provisions of the Railways Act and the rules made
         thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the
         inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims
         Tribunal under this Act."

Section 15 provides that on or from the appointed day, no court or other       H
    76                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1992] SUP}>. 3 S.C.R.

A   authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or
    authority in relation to the matter~ referred to in Sub-section {1} of Section
    13. We now come to Section 16 which reads as under:

            "16. Application to Clai~s Tribunal. - (1) A person seek-
            ing any relief in respect of the matters referred to in sub-
B           section (1) of Sectio.n 13 may make an application to the.
            Claims Tribunal.
                                   ;·

            (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in
            such form and be accompanied by such documents or
            other e~dence and by such fee in respect of the filing of
c           such application and by such other fees for the service or
            execution of processes as may be prescribed. ·

            Provided that ~o such fee shall be payable in respect of
            an application under sub-clause (ii) of clause {a) or'sub-
D           section (l) ofSection 13."                          ·

    Section 18(1) provides that the Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the
    procedure laid down by the Code, but shall be guided by the principles of
    natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of the Act and of any
    rules, the Claims Tribunal shall have powers to regulate .its own procedure.
E   Sub-section (3) of Section 18 then provides as under :

             "18(3). The Claims. Tribunal shall have, for the purposes
             of discharging its .functions under this Act, · the same
           · powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of
             Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in
F
             respect ofthe following matters, namely:-
                              ·'
            (a) summoning (ind enforcing the attendance of any per-
             . son and examining him on oath;

G           {b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

            (c) receiving evi<l~nce on affidavits;

             (d) subject. to the provisions of Sections U3 and 124 of
               . the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (1 of 1872), requisi-
H                tioni~g any public record or document or copy of such ·
      AA. HAJAMUNIUDDIN. v. INDIAN RAILWAYS [AHMADJ,J.]                      77

             record or docurrient from atty office; .                              A
         (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses
             or documents;

         (f) reviewing its decisions:
                                                                                   B
         (g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex
             parte;·

         (h) setting aside any order or dismissal of any application
             for default or any order passed by it ex parte;                       c
         (i) any other matter which may be prescribed."

:section 24 provides for the transfer of every suit, claim or other legal
 .proceeding (other than an appeal) pending before any Court, Claims               D
 Co?lmissioner or other authority immediately before the appointed day,
 being a suit, claim or proceeding, the cause of action whereon it is based
 is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after the appointed day,
 within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal, shall stand transferred on
 that day to the Claims Tribunal. It is, therefore, obvious that every suit
  pending before any court before the appointed day would stand transferred        E
  to the Claims Tribunal if the cause of action thereof is one that would have
  been, if it had arisen after the appointed day, within the jurisdiction of the
  Claims Tribunal. Section 28 lays down that the provisions of the Act shall
  have effect notwithstand:,1g anything inconsistent therewith contained in
  any other law for the time being in force. Section 30 empowers the Central       F
  Government to make rules. In exercise of this power the Central Govern-
  ment made the rules referred to above and brought them into force from
  the appointed day i.e. the date with effect from which the Claims Tribunal
  came to be established under Section 3 of the Act. Rule 6 which is relevant
  for our purpose provides that every application made under Sub-section
  (1) of Section 16 for seeking relief in respect of matters, other than claim     G
  of compensation for death or injuries to passengers, shall be accompanied
  by a fee as specified in Schedule II. Rule 44 lays down that nothing in the
  Rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of
  the Tribunal to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of
  justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Tribunal.                      H
    78                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A        It will be seen from the scheme of the Act that on its coming into
  force from the appointed day, all suits pending in the civil court would
  stand transferred to the Claims Tribunal if the cause of action of the suit
  would have fallen within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal after the appointed
  day. Therefore, even a suit filed under the· provisions of Order XXXIII
B would stand transferred to the Claims Tribunal and the Claims Tribunal
  would be required to dispose it of as such. That is because Section. 13
  specifically provides that the Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on or from the
  appointed day all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exer-
  cisable immediately befote that day by any civil court providep the same
c relates to the recovery of compensation for loss, destruction, damage,
  deterioration or non-delivery of goods entrusted to the railways for carriage
  by railway. Section 15 bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain
  and try such suits on and from the appointed day. In other words after the
  appointed day the Claims Tribunal alone would have jurisdiction to enter-
D tain and try claims referred to in clauses (a) & (b) of Sub-section (i) 'of
  Section 13 of the Act. Section 18 then sets out the procedure to be followed
  by the Clainis Tribunal. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 states that the Claims
  Tribunal shall not be bound ?Y the procedure laid down by the Code but
  shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. and shall have powers
  to regulate its own procedure. It is true that Sub-section (1) of Section 18
E in term states that the Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure
  laid down by the Code but that does not mean that it is precluded from
  invoking t_he procedure laid down by the code even if the ends of justice
  so require. The Sub-section further states that· the Tribunal shall have
  powers to regulate its own procedure and Sub-section (3) of Section 18
F enumerates the matters in respect whereof the Claims Tribunal is per-
  mitted to exercise the same powers vested in a civil court under the Code
  while trying a suit. Rule 44 in terms states that nothing in the Rules shall
  be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Tribunal
  to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Nowhere
G in the Act is there any provision which runs counter to or is inconsistent
  with the pro0sions of Order XXXIII of the Code. Although the Act and
  the Rules do not specifically provide for the application. of Order XXXIII
  of the Code, there is ·nothing in the Act or the Rules which predudes the
  Tribunal from following that procedure if the ends ofjustice so require. If
H the view taken by the Tribunal is acc~pted as laying .down the correct iaw,
         A.A HAJAMUNIUDDIN. v. INDIANRAILWAYS[AHMADI,J.]                      79

    the result would be that a claimant who has a.genuine claim for compen-         A
    sation under the provisions of the Act would be denied access to the Claims
    Tribunal if he is an indigent person and does not have the means to pay
    the fee required on the claim-application. Before the establishment of the
    Claims Tribunal he would have been able to file the suit invoking Order
    XXXIII of the Code as an indigent person. Now that a special Claims             B
    Tribunal has been established under the Act, can it be said that indigent
    persons who do not have the means to pay the fee required on the
    claim-application are altogether debarred from seeking compensation from
    the railway administration for the wrong done to them? Access to justice
    cannot be denied to an individual merely because he does not have the           C
    means to pay the prescribed fee. Such a. view would leave indigent persons
    without a remedy. It is, therefore, essential that the provisions of the Act
    and the Rules must be broadly interpreted to ensure access to justice. If a
    claimant is left without redress even if he .has a valid claim against the
    railway administration merely because he is an indigent person, it would        D
    be a sad day and the poor will lose confidence in the system. No one can
    be heard to say, much less the railway administration, that even though the
    claimant has a genuine claim for compensation against the railway ad-
    ministration, he must forgo the same if he does not have the means to pay
     the requisite fee. Such an interpretation which denies justice must be
     avoided. Section 18(1) only says that the Claims Tribunal 'shall not be        E
     bound' by the procedure laid down by the Code but does not go so far as
     to say that it 'shall be precluded' from invoking the provisions laid down
     by the Code even if the same is not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules.
     Since the Claims Tribunal is empowered to regulate its own procedure,
     there is nothing in the Act and the Rules which precludes the invocation       F
     of Order XXXIII of the Code. A view which advances the cause of justice
     must be preferred to the one which defeats it. We are, therefore, of the
     opinion that the Tribunal adopted a narrow interpretation of the relevant
     provisions of the Act in coming to the conclusion that the Act as well as
     the Rules did not perm.it invocation of Order XXXIII of the Code. The          G
     view taken by the Tribunal results in a person not having the means to pay
     the fee prescribed for preferring a claim being left without a remedy. Such
     a view would result in gross injustice. The Tribunal has the power to lay
     down its own procedure and as stated earlier Section 18(1) does not
     preclude it from invoking the provisions of Order XXXIII of the Code if        H

-
    80                    SUPREME CO:JRTREPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   the_ ends of justice so require. When an .indigent person approaches the
    Tribunal for compensation for the wrong done to him, the Tribunal cannot
    refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely because he does not have th~ m~ans
    to pay the fee. In such a s;tuation we think the ends of justice :require that
    the Tribunal should follow the procedure 4iid down :in Order XXXIH of
B   the Code to do justice for which it came to be establi~hed.

          In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Claims
    Tribunal and remit the matter to the Claims Tribunal to deal with the
    appellant's claim-application in the light of the principle enunciated
    hereinabove. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no
C   order as to costs.

    V.P.R.                                                       Appeal allowed.