Delhi High Court
Hansraj (Since Deceased) Through ... vs Union Of India on 9 August, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 304/2017
% 9th August, 2017
HANSRAJ (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRs AND ORS.
..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. No one appears for the respondent in spite of service. By
this first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987 the appellants/claimants impugn the order of the Railway Claims
Tribunal dated 19.4.2017, by which the Railway Claims Tribunal has
dismissed the claim petition by holding that complaint is abated on
account of death pendente lite of the original claimant. Impugned
order dated 19.4.2017 reads as under:-
"19.04.17
Sh. R.D.Bersena, learned counsel for the applicant is present Sh.
A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent is present. The injured
applicant is reported to have died. The counsel stated that it was a case of
natural death. Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act provides for no
survival of cause of action for personal injuries. The hospital record shown
to us has diagnosed cancer of lungs to the cause of death. The death is not
related to the injuries suffered in the alleged incident. The application is
accordingly dismissed as having abated with no order as to costs."
2. The subject claim petition was filed before the Railway
Claims Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by late Sh. Hans Raj.
Sh. Hans Raj was alive when the claim petition was filed and which
was filed for seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered in
the train accident which is defined as an „untoward incident‟ under
Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 and which entitles the
injured to compensation on account of an untoward incident as per
Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
3. In a case such as the present even if injured dies during
the pendency of the proceedings, then right to sue survives because the
right to sue in favour of the deceased Sh. Hans Raj crystallizes when
the claim petition was filed. Right to sue is crystallized because
entitlement of the deceased Sh. Hans Raj was for compensation and an
entitlement to compensation being an entitlement to moneys cannot
abate on the death of the claimant in the claim petition. Railway
Claims Tribunal has therefore clearly erred in passing the impugned
order holding that the claim petition stood abated.
4. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order
dated 19.4.2017 is set aside and the claim petition will now be decided
by the Railway Claims Tribunal in accordance with law for deciding
as to whether or not claimants are entitled to the compensation for the
injuries suffered by the deceased Sh. Hans Raj in the train accident
and which is pleaded to be an untoward incident.
5. Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms
of aforesaid observations.
AUGUST 09, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne/ib
