Telangana High Court
Smt.E.Anitha vs Union Of India on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Sambasivarao Naidu
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 579 OF 2018
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the Order dated 04-10-2017 in O.A (II) (U)
No.295 of 2015 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Secunderabad Bench, the applicants in the said OA preferred
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. According to the grounds urged by the appellants
in the present appeal, the main grievance of the applicants is
that the Tribunal below adopted very narrow minded
approach, in spite of the fact that the Act is beneficial piece of
legislation. Thereby they sought for setting aside the Order and
sought for an opportunity.
3. According to the Judgment filed along with the
appeal and as per other record, it shows that O.A (II) (U)
No.295 of 2015 has been filed by the applicants herein for
compensation on account of death of E.Pandu Goud @ E.Pandu
in a train accident that occurred on 15-04-2015. The appellant
2 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.579 of 2018
No.1 herein is the wife and Appellant No.2 herein is the son of
the said E.Pandu Goud.
4. The said application was filed by the
appellants/applicants for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in
view of the death of E.Pandu Goud, who is no other than
husband of first applicant and father of the other applicant.
According to the allegations made in the application, it is the
case of appellants herein that on 15-04-2015, the deceased
E.Pandu Goud with a view to attend a contract coolie work at
Kazipet, he along with his brother-in-law went to
Secunderabad, after attending their personal work, with a view
to go to Kazipet, went to Secunderabad railway station. He has
purchased II Class combined train journey ticket from
Secunderabad to Kazipet and boarded Train No.12710
Secunderabad - Gudur Simhapuri Express, while the train was
proceeding towards Kazipet, he accidentally slipped and fell
from the running train in the yard of Pagidipalli railway station
due to speed, jolts and sudden jerks of the train and he suffered
3 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.579 of 2018
severe head injury and died on the spot on the intervening
night of 15/16.04.2015. In view of the said accident, his wife
and son filed the above said O.A. which was resisted by the
respondent i.e., General Manager, South Central Railway,
Secunderabad.
5. The respondent opposed the claim and filed written
statement denying the material averments of the petition and
put the applicants to strict proof of their case.
6. On the basis of the rival contentions, issues have
been framed and matter was adjourned from time to time, for
trial. However, on 04-10-2017 the application of the applicants
herein was dismissed in view of the non-prosecution of the
case.
7. It appears from the record that the learned member
of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad found that the
applicants did not come forward to adduce evidence in spite of
number of adjournments granted to them, thereby, dismissed
4 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.579 of 2018
the claim application. Even though, it is stated in the order that
the claim application is dismissed on merits, the contents of the
order clearly show that the appellants/applicants did not
adduce any evidence and the dismissal of O.A. is resulted in
view of their failure to produce evidence and to prove their
claim. Therefore, it is very clear that the application filed by the
applicants herein was not decided on merits but was decided
due to their failure to produce the evidence.
8. Applicants have filed the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal against the said Order and the learned
counsel for the applicants has submitted that no proper
opportunity was given to the applicants herein to submit their
case before the Tribunal. Learned counsel has further
submitted that the applicants and other persons who filed
similar applications filed a memo before the Tribunal with a
request to refer the matter before Lokadalath and it was
bonafide request and therefore sought for an opportunity to
contest their claim.
5 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.579 of 2018
9. As could be seen from the Order challenged in the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, it shows that though the
matter was adjourned from time to time for number of
adjournments, the applicants herein did not choose to produce
any evidence.
10. Learned counsel representing the respondents
herein submitted that there are no bonafides in the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal and that the application itself is a fake
claim and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. It may be true that the applicants failed to adduce
evidence in spite of number of adjournments but the
application cannot be decided without giving any opportunity.
The applicants are entitled to fair chance of producing evidence
and proving their claim. Therefore, it is a fit case for remanding
the matter to the Tribunal below, with a specific direction to
dispose the same on merits by giving opportunity to both
parties.
6 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.579 of 2018
12. In view of the above discussion, this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of by remanding the matter
to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, and in
O.A (II) (U) No.295 of 2015 is restored. The Railway Claims
Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench is directed to dispose of the
above OA by giving reasonable opportunity to both parties, for
adducing evidence and submitting their respective arguments.
The Tribunal shall dispose of the OA within 6 (Six) months
from the date of receipt of records.
13. With the above directions, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________
SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J
26th
July, 2022
PLV
7 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.579 of 2018
8 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.579 of 2018
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.152 OF 2021
Dated: 05-Jul-2022
KHRM
