Telangana High Court
Muddad Bhavani vs Union Of India on 20 September, 2022
Bench: Sambasivarao Naidu
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 329 OF 2018
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the Order dated 19-09-2017 in O.A (II) (U)
No.291 of 2013 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.291
of 2013 has been filed by the applicants herein for compensation
on account of death of K.Venkataswamy in a train accident that
occurred on 03-04-2013. The appellants No.1 and 2 are the
married daughter and son of the said K.Venkataswamy.
2 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.329 of 2018
4. The said application was filed by the
appellants/applicants for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in view
of the death of K.Venkataswamy, who is no other than father of
the applicants. According to the allegations made in the
application, it is the case of appellants herein that on
03-04-2013, the deceased K.Venkataswamy with a view to
return to Secunderabad from his Village, went to Srikakulam
Road RS along with his friend and other villagers. He has
purchased II Class Super Fast train journey ticket from
Srikakulam road to Secunderabad and boarded Train No.12703
Howrah - Secunderabad Falaknuma Super Fast Express in a 2nd
class general compartment, while the train was proceeding
towards Secunderabad, he accidentally slipped and fell from the
running train between Powerpet and Vatlur railway station in the
yard of Powerpet railway station due to speed, jolts and sudden
jerks of the train and he suffered severe head injury and other
multiple fatal injuries and died on the spot in the early hours of
04.04.2013. In view of the said accident, his married daughter
and son filed the above said O.A. which was resisted by the
respondent i.e., General Manager, South Central Railway,
Secunderabad.
3 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.329 of 2018
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 19-09-2017 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
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.
4 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.329 of 2018
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.
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
5 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.329 of 2018
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.
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.291 of 2013 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
20th September, 2022
PLV
6 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.329 of 2018
7 SSRN,J
C.M.A.No.329 of 2018
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.152 OF 2021
Dated: 05-Jul-2022
KHRM
