Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010169642019 2026:GAU-AS:5710 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MFA/209/2019 MS. KAUSHALAYA DAS W/O- LATE HARENDRA DAS, R/O- VILL. NO. 3, OUZARY, P.S. KHETRI, P.O. DURUNG, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN, M. KALITA,MS. M SHARMA,MS. S P DAS,SYED BURHANUR RAHMAN,MR. M ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 23-04-2026 Heard learned counsel Ms. M. Sharma for the appellant Ms. Kaushalaya Das and learned Railway counsel Mr. B. Sarma for the respondent. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.04.2019 in Page No.# 2/5 connection with Claim Application No. O.A.IIu-116/2017 (Old), Claim Application No. OAIIu/GHY/116/2017(New). 3. In an unfortunate incident, the husband of the appellant Harendra Das passed away on 14.07.2017. Compensation was prayed for by the appellant which was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Single Member of the Bench of the Tribunal cannot decide a claim application as it goes against the decision of this Court dated 08.05.2025 passed in the Union of India-Versus- M/S Shree Mahalaxmi Mills in connection with MFA/90/2013 as well as the decision dated 18.11.2025 passed in the Union of India-Versus-M/S Bajaj Steel in connection with MFA/113/2016. 5. It is submitted that both the orders of this Court have been passed after relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amulya Chandra Kalita vs. Union of India and Ors. Reported in (1991) 1 SCC 181. 6. In this instant case, it is apparent that this case has been decided by a Single Bench of the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has however raised objection stating that the DRM report as per Rules 7 and 10 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, has not been submitted by the Railway authorities within the prescribed time. It is submitted that the railway passenger Harendra Das died on 17.07.2017 due to an accident while he was traveling in a train, whereas, the DRM report was prepared on 19.07.2018. The appellant has a good case and even if the matter is remanded back on the ground of being tried wrongly by a Single Bench, the fact that the DRM report Page No.# 3/5 was submitted after 1 (One) year instead of within 60 (Sixty) days, after the date of the incident, will go against the submissions of the learned counsel for the Railways. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Railways has submitted that at this juncture, when the appropriate forum has not passed the impugned judgment, it is not necessary to get into the merits of the case. 9. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 10. It has been held by this Court in M/S Shree Mahalaxmi Mills (supra) that :- “5. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that earlier by an order dated 09.07.2015, the Divion Bench of Gujarat High Court in Union of India Through general Manager &Ors vs Satendra RamjorOza &7 Ors, in Special Civil Application No.2602 of 2013,basing on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amulya Chandra Kalita, wherein it was observed that every bench of the Tribunal must consist of a judicial member and an Administrative Member, has held that the Administrative member alone could not have heard and decide the matter. He further submits that based on the above observation, the learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court by an order dated 27.08.2018, passed in R/First Appeal No.1528/2018 (Minor Sumit Suresh Sharma Vs. Union of India) observed that, the claim application could not have been decided by a single member (Technical). This order dated 27.08.2018 was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.213-214 of 2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.15050-15051 of 2009) [Union of India Vs.Minor Sumit Suresh Sharma], and by an order dated 7.01.2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the SLP, thereby upheld the order dated 27.08.2018.in the light of the above decision, the learned counsel for the respondent submit that the matter may be sent back to the learned Tribunal for fresh trial on the matter consist of two members one judicial and one technical. 6. Mr. D.K. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant conceded with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, and in view of the above Page No.# 4/5 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 7. In light of the above, and as held by the Apex Court in the above case of Union of India vs Minor Sumit Suresh Sharma (Supra), the impugned judgment and order dated 28.12.2012passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Claim application No.OA.I/GHY/2004/0135 (Old No.O.A.135/04) is hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Railway tribunal Guwahati for fresh adjudication of the claim petition on merit.” 11. It has also been held by this Court in M/S Bajaj Steel (supra) that :- “6. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amulya Chandra Kalita (supra) and the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 08.05.2025, in MFA No. 90/2013, the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2016, stands set aside and quashed. 7. The matter stands remanded to the learned Tribunal with a direction to constitute a Bench comprising of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member and to dispose of the same after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties.” 12. Reverting back to this case, it is held that in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amulya Chandra Kalita (supra) and the decision of this Court in M/S Bajaj Steel (supra), this case is also remanded back to be decided by the appropriate forum by constituting an appropriate bench of a judicial member and a technical member. 13. The Tribunal is directed to decide the matter of the appellant as expeditiously as possible. Page No.# 5/5 14. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant