Raju @Premi Lal (Since Deceased) ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 380 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 39/2013
%                                             21st January, 2014


RAJU @PREMI LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THR.L.R'S ......Appellants
                   Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.


                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                      ...... Respondents
                   Through:              Mr. Dinkar Singh, Advocate.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?        Yes


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    By this first appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims

Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant impugns the order dated 8.11.2012 passed

by the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal set

aside its original judgment dated 29.7.2011 by which compensation was

awarded to the deceased Sh. Raju. The compensation award has been set

aside only on the ground that at the stage of final arguments, the original

claimant Sh. Raju had expired but his legal heirs were not brought on record



FAO 39/2013                                                                 Page 1 of 3
 and therefore, the award of compensation dated 29.7.2011 has to be set

aside.


2.            I may note that Supreme Court in the case of A.A.Haja

Muniuddian Vs. Indian Railways (1992) 4 SCC 736 has referred to the fact

that the CPC does not apply to proceedings under the Railway Claims

Tribunal Act. In fact, this is so clearly mentioned in sub-Sections 1 and 2 of

Section 18 of the Act. Sub-Section 2 of Section 18 makes it clear that the

Tribunal can regulate its own procedure. Therefore, there is no automatic

abatement in law once the provisions of abatement as contained in CPC do

not apply. There is also no prejudice to either of the parties by bringing on

record the legal heirs of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in

not treating the original judgment dated 29.7.2011 to have been validly

passed because the case was at the stage of final arguments and no further

action was required to be taken by any of the parties.


3.            In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned

order dated 8.11.2012 is set aside and the original compensation award

decision dated 29.7.2011 is restored. Parties are left to bear their own costs.




FAO 39/2013                                                                   Page 2 of 3
 4.            It is clarified that the compensation which is awarded will be

apportioned between the legal representatives of the deceased Raju and for

which purpose, necessary documentation will be filed before the Tribunal.




JANUARY 21, 2014                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib