Kundaram Ashok vs Union Of India

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.

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.

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 No.1 herein is the wife and Appellant No.2 herein is the son of the said E.Pandu Goud.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.