Allowed

Smt.Akurathi Veeramma v. Union of India

Telangana HC4 Mar 2011CMA/453/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the single judge allowed the appeal to restore the Railway Claims Tribunal Order dated 19-09-2005 dismissed for default by holding that the default was excusable given the petitioner's illness. The relief granted was subject to barring the petitioners from claiming interest on any principal amount adjudicated later.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; O.A.A. restored; payment of interest on any allowed principal amount denied; no costs awarded.

Smt.Akurathi Veeramma Vs Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

C.M.A No: 453 of 2007

¶3

04th March, 2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt. Akurathi Veeramma and another

¶6

… Appellants

¶7

And Union of India, Rep by The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶10

C.M.A No: 453 of 2007

¶11

JUDGMENT:

¶12

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, is directed against order dated 10-012007 in I.A.No.523 of 2006 in O.A.A.No.93 of 1999 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. The appellants are the petitioners in the Interlocutory Application and Applicants in the O.A.A and, the respondent is the respondent in both the Interlocutory Application and the O.A.A. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Interlocutory Application.

¶13

2. The petition was filed under Section 18(3)(h) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 to restore the O.A.A. dismissed by the Tribunal for default on 19-09-2005. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the date of hearing the case, the petitioner No.1 could not appear before the Tribunal due to viral fever on account of seasonal changes and there was no deliberate intention to drag on the matter.

¶14

3. On the other hand, the respondent filed counter in which it is pleaded that the pleas taken by the petitioners are false and no valid reasons are given to uphold their claim.

¶15

4. After examining the matter, the Tribunal observed that on three occasions, i.e. on 24-03-2005, 02-08-2005 and 30-08-2005, the counsel for the petitioners sought for adjournment on the ground that the petitioners were not ready to proceed with the trial in the O.A.A. and no valid reasons were given to uphold his claim and ultimately dismissed the application.

¶16

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that on

¶17

19-09-2005, i.e. on the date of the dismissal of the O.A.A., the petitioner No.1 was suffering from viral fever and on 14-03-2002, one Member (Technical) of the Tribunal was on O.D and the case was posted to 01-05-2002 and there was no quorum to be attended by two members and, on 28-03-2005 itself Member (Technical) retired and both the parties were not ready whereas on 19-09-2005, the I.A. was dismissed for default.

¶18

6. It is contended by the respondents that three opportunities were given to the petitioners to adduce necessary evidence, but they failed to avail the opportunities and, further, no medical certificate was filed to substantiate the claim of the petitioner No.1 that he suffered from viral fever.

¶19

7. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioners filed the main application making a certain claim. Therefore, it is difficult to say that they got no interest in the application. Though it is held that the petitioners failed to avail the opportunity of adducing necessary evidence at the outset, mainly it is to be considered as to whether they committed any default on the date of dismissal of the petition on 19-092005. Therefore, there must be some reason for their default in proceeding with the trial of the application. It might be that the petitioner No.1 who was looking after the case fell sick to appear before the Tribunal on the particular day. But they should have been intelligent enough to proceed with the matter as required.

¶20

8. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed subject to denying the petitioners of payment of interest that may be awarded on such amount allowed finally in the main application subject to allowing the application either wholly or in part. In the circumstances, no costs are awarded.

¶21

JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶22

04^th March, 2011

¶23

KSM

Smt.Akurathi Veeramma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Akurathi Veeramma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Property Association of Baptist Churches [P] Ltd., Vs T.S. Yesuraju

Sunka Rajamma Vs Union of India

N. Nagamani Vs The Union of India

Smt G.Chinnamma(died) Vs B.Shivaramkrishna

Union of India Vs Kalli Sitamma

The Union of India Vs Katari Yadagiri