JUDGMENT
P.K. Misra, J.
1. The Union of India has filed these appeals. Heard Mr. B. Pal for the appellant and Mr. S. B. Das for the respondent. Though all the matters were listed for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, in consent of learned counsels appearing for both parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal.
2. The respondent had filed various applications claiming compensation alleging short delivery. The present appellant filed written statement denying the allegations made. The Railway Claims Tribunal has passed a common order directing payment of compensation in the various cases.
3. Though several contentions have been raised in course of hearing of the appeals, it is not necessay to notice all such contentions as in my opinion, the appeals are to be allowed and the matters remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh disposal.
4. Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short, the “Act”) which lays down the procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal, is extracted hereunder :
” 18. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal :
(1) The Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Claims Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its enquiry.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall decide every application as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every applicaton shall be decided on a-perusal of documents, written representations and affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced.
(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 respect of the following matters, namely :
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) subject to the provisions of Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1892), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office; ”
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) reviewing its decisions;
(g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte;
(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex parte;
(i) any other matter which may be prescribed.”
5. It is, of course, true that Sub-Section (1) envisages that the Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, but it is emphasised therein that it shall be guided by principles of natural justice and “subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules shall have power to regulate its own procedure…….”. Thus, the Claims Tribunal while adopting its own procedure to regulate the proceeding has to be guided by the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Sub-Section (3) envisages that the Claims Tribunal shall have “the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court” in respect of various matters including the power relating to summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath and any other matters which may be prescribed. There is no dispute that pursuant to the provisions contained in the Act, the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (in short, the “Rules”) have been framed. Rule 15 of the Rules envisages that the respondent has to file reply to the claim application. Rule 17 prescribes that “the Tribunal shall notify the parties the date and place of hearing of the application in such manner as the Chairman may, by general or special order, direct”. Rule 21 almost reiterates the power of the Tribunal under Section 18(3) of the Act. Rule 21, which is important for the purpose is extracted hereunder :
“21. Framing and determination of issue-
(1) After considering the reply, the Tribunal shall ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues upon which the right decision of the case appears to it to depend.
(2) In recording the issues, the Tribunal shall distinguish between those issues which in its opinion concern points of facts and those which concern points of law.
(3) After framing the issues, the Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence thereon which each party may desire to produce.”
6. Rule 21 specifically envisages framing and determination of issues. Rule 21(3) specifically envisages that after framing the issues. ‘”the Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence… which each party may desire to produce”. The Tribunal can decide a matter on the basis of affidavit or may decide by taking oral evidence. It goes without saying that where the Tribunal decides the case on the basis of affidavits, it must so indicate to the parties so that the parties may file affidavits and when a matter is to be decided, the adversary if it so requests should be given opportunity of cross-examining the deponents. This is one of the basic principles of natural justice which is required to be followed. As already noticed, Section 18 of the Act itself envisages that the Tribunal is to be guided by the principles of natural justice,
7. It is not disputed that in the present case, the Tribunal has not framed issues and thereafter has not called upon the parties to adduce evidence either by way of affidavit or by oral evidence, though the impugned order refers to the issues to be decided. The order-sheet does not indicate that the Tribunal had given opportunity to the parties including the present appellant to adduce evidence after framing issues. It appears that only “after hearing oral argument from both sides” (though on this aspect there is lot of controversy – it is unnecessary to determine if the Tribunal actually heard oral arguments or not), the Tribunal had posted the matter , for final orders and thereafter pronounced the order fixing liability on the present appellant. It is thus evident that before finally deciding the matter, the Tribunal has not framed the “issues”, nor called upon the parties to adduce evidence, as envisaged in Rule 21. Since the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules, the impugned order in each of the appeals is required to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 4th September, 2000, on which date, the Tribunal shall fix a suitable date and thereafter proceed to decide the matters in accordance with law.
8. The appeals are accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.