Allowed

S.Paramkusam and 2 Others v. Union of India

Telangana HC4 Oct 2018CMA/309/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a claim regarding dependency on a deceased. The appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted to allow the appellants to adduce further evidence on dependency after affording reasonable opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed, the order dated 09.12.2011 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal to dispose of afresh after affording an opportunity to lead evidence.

S.Paramkusam and 2 Others Vs Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

Civil Miscellan eou s Appeal No.3 0 9 of 2 0 1 4

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is filed by the appellantsapplicants, challenging the order, dated 09.12.2011, passed in O.A.A.No.149 of 2005 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity).

¶5

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-applicants, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Railways and perused the record.

¶6

3 . The learned counsel for the appellants-applicants would contend that the appellants-applicants could not produce the Family Members Certificate and other documents required to establish that they were the dependants of the deceased before the Tribunal till the disposal of the claim petition. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the appellantsapplicants failed to prove that they are the dependants of the deceased. Now, the appellants-applicants intend to file relevant documents to substantiate that they are dependants on the deceased and ultimately requested this Court to remit the matter to the Tribunal for disposal of the claim petition afresh, after affording opportunity to the appellants-applicants to lead additional evidence on this aspect.

¶7

4 . Admittedly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the appellants-claimants failed to prove that they were the

¶8

-2 -

¶9

dependants of the deceased. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is a beneficial legislation and in a case like this, pragmatic approach has to be adopted in order to permit the appellantsclaimants to adduce further evidence. Hence, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to permit the appellants-claimants to lead further evidence.

¶10

5 . The appeal is allowed accordingly, by setting aside the order, dated 09.12.2011, passed in O.A.A.No.149 of 2005 by the Tribunal. The matter is remitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, with a direction to restore O.A.A.No.149 of 2005, permit the appellants/ claimants to lead further evidence, if any, and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties. The Tribunal shall complete the said exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶11

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

______________________ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

¶14

04^th October, 2018 Bvv

S.Paramkusam and 2 Others v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Paramkusam and 2 Others 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

Chanda Naga Bhushanam Vs M. Rama Raju and Another

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Kunchala Padma

V.Rama Naidu Vs v.Damu Naidu , Damodar Naidu

Akshay , Gaurav Singh Vs the Apsrtc

G. Sulochana and 2 Others Vs Union of India

Abha Viswa Karma (Died) and 2 Othrs Vs Union of India, Secbad