K. Leena Josna Devi vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 4763 Tel

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.221 OF 2019


JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the Order dated 04-10-2017 in O.A (II) (U)

No.107 of 2014 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,

Secunderabad Bench, the applicant in the said OA preferred this

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. According to the grounds urged by the appellant in

the present appeal, the main grievance of the applicant is that

the Tribunal below adopted very narrow minded approach, in

spite of the fact that the Act is beneficial piece of legislation.

Thereby she 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.107

of 2014 has been filed by the applicant herein for compensation

on account of death of K.Ramadevi in a train accident that

occurred on 31-12-2013. The appellant is the daughter of the

said K.Ramadevi.

                                                                  SSRN,J





     4.    The    said    application      was   filed     by      the

appellant/applicant for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in view

of the death of K.Ramadevi, who is no other than the mother of

applicant. According to the allegations made in the application,

it is the case of appellant herein that on 31-12-2013, the

deceased K.Ramadevi along with her sister went to their native

village, in their return journey both went to Anakapalle railway

station in the morning hours. She has purchased a 2nd class

combined super fast train journey ticket from Anakapalle to

Rajahmundry and boarded Train No.12805 Vishakapatnam -

Secunderabad Janmabhoomi super fast express in a 2nd class

general compartment, while traveling the deceased Ramadevi

went to toilet and from there to wash basin and while washing

her hands, she accidentally slipped and fell down from the

running train and she suffered severe head injury and other

multiple fatal injuries and died on the spot. In view of the said

accident, his daughter filed the above said O.A. which was

resisted by the respondent i.e., General Manager, South Central

Railway, Secunderabad.

SSRN,J

5. The respondent opposed the claim and filed written

statement denying the material averments of the petition and

put the applicant to strict proof of her 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 04-10-2007 the application of the applicant

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

applicant did not come forward to adduce evidence in spite of

number of adjournments granted to her, 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 appellant/applicant did not adduce

any evidence and the dismissal of O.A. is resulted in view of her

failure to produce evidence and to prove her claim. Therefore, it

is very clear that the application filed by the applicant herein was

not decided on merits but was decided due to her failure to

produce the evidence.

SSRN,J

8. Applicant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal against the said Order and the learned counsel for the

applicant has submitted that no proper opportunity was given to

the applicant herein to submit her case before the Tribunal.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicant 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 respondent 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 applicant failed to adduce

evidence in spite of number of adjournments but the application SSRN,J

cannot be decided without giving any opportunity. The applicant

is entitled to fair chance of producing evidence and proving her

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.107 of 2014 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 SSRN,J

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.152 OF 2021

Dated: 05-Jul-2022 KHRM