Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1580 (AP)

P. Hymavathi v. Union of India

2024-12-06

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 26.02.2007 dismissing the claim in OAA No.252 of 2002 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad filed by the appellants herein. 2. Due to the death of Sri P. Mohan Rao on 01.08.2002 when he accidentally fell between the platform and the track at Kazipet Railway Station while travelling by Train No.7406, Krishna Express from Kazipet to Khammam, his wife and two sons filed the claim petition seeking compensation. The 2nd applicant was examined as AW1 and Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A2 inquest report, Ex.A3 PME Certificate were marked. On the side of the respondent, Dy.SS was examined as RW1 and no document was marked. 3. Since no family member certificate had been filed before the Tribunal, the claim was dismissed by the Tribunal observing that it was not possible for the Tribunal to come to conclusion that the applicants are the dependants of the deceased. It is further observed that the respondent had taken a specific defence in the written statement at Paragraph No.9 that the applicants were called upon to strictly prove that they are the legal heirs and the dependants of the deceased. As such, the claim was dismissed only on that ground. 4. Aggrieved by the order, this appeal was filed. The appellants contended that after disposal of the claim petition, they filed review petition before the Railway Tribunal vide Review Petition No.06 of 2015 alongwith petition MA No.50 of 2015 to condone the delay in filing the review petition. It is further stated that the family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Ongole obtained through Meeseva on 03.11.2015 was enclosed to the review petition, yet the petitions were dismissed on the sole ground that Rule 32 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 provided review of order if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, but in the present case the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the case as the applicants had failed to prove their dependency on the deceased and further that the applicants had not explained the reasons sufficient to explain the delay of 3,056 days in filing the review petition. 5. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that as per Rule 32 of RCT (Procedure) Rules, 1989, it is not only for when the mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record but for any other sufficient reason also, a final order can be reviewed, however, the said ground had not been considered at all by the Tribunal. 6. Nextly, he submitted that since the delay in filing the present appeal had been condoned by this Court, and the appellants had placed before this Court the Family Members Certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The appeal may be allowed and the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh by taking the additional evidence of the family members certificate and pass appropriate order. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted to pass appropriate order. 8. Though the delay creates a first impression of latches of the claimants; in view of the fact that some long time had been spent in procuring the certificate and prosecuting the review petition, and moreover the claim itself is a social welfare measure, no adverse inference shall influence any judicial mind to arrive at just conclusion. After the sudden death of the bread earner of the family, hope of the future of the members would be shattered. If at all the family member certificate to establish the relationship of the claimants to the deceased is required, the Tribunal could have directed the claimants to produce the same. Though the claim is raised under a different enactment, the nature of the claim is on par with the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act which is held undisputably that it is social welfare measure and a liberal approach should be adopted. Therefore, while adjudicating the claims by the Railway Claims Tribunal, the same kind of approach shall be adopted. Instead of securing the evidence required, the claim was dismissed on the sole ground of non-establishment of the relationship. If not the family members certificate, the other record secured by the investigating officer in a criminal case relating to the same incident would have provided the required evidence sufficient and necessary to adjudicate the relationship. Yet, no such effort was made by the Tribunal. The approach of the Tribunal is quite technical and mechanical defeating the object of the Act. Yet, no such effort was made by the Tribunal. The approach of the Tribunal is quite technical and mechanical defeating the object of the Act. As such, it is a case fit to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the claim by allowing the claimants to file additional evidence deemed necessary and sufficient to establish the relationship of the claimants to the deceased. If there is delay in adjudication of the claim for the reasons attributable to the claimants, the right to receive interest, if any, payable during the whole period of the delay can be refused. But, the adjudication shall not be rejected. 9. For the reasons noted in the foregoing discussion, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed, order dated 26.02.2007 dismissing the claim in OAA No.252 of 2002 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, with the above said directions. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil miscellaneous appeal shall stand closed.