Remanded

Muddad Bhavani v. Union of India

Telangana HC20 Sept 2022CMA/329/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the parents of a deceased Railways employee challenging the dismissal of their compensation claim. The Court remanded the appeal to the Railway Claims Tribunal, ordering a fresh disposal on merits within six months after affording reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, with a direction to dispose of the Original Application on merits within 6 months of receipt of records.

Muddad Bhavani Vs Union of India — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^{3258 j}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

C.M.A.NO: 329 OF 2018

¶7

Appeal under Section 23 of Railway Tribunal Act against the order in O.A ll (U) No. 291 ot 2013 dated 19.09.2017 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench.

¶8

Between

¶9

Muddad Bhavani, Wo M. Krishna, Aged about 25 years, Occ : Coolie, R/o Ghanasara Village, Bhamini Mandal, Srikakulam District

¶10

Kota Sai Krishna, S/o late K. Venkataswamy, Aged about 15 years, Occ : Student, Rio Ghanasara Village, Bhamini Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS

¶11

(R-2 is Minor Rep by its sister)

¶12

AND

¶13

UNION OF lNDlA, rep. By its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS A P PEA L No. 329 OF 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Aggrieved by the Order dated 19-09-20L7 in O.A (II)^(U) No.291 of 2013 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, the applicants in the said OA^preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶21

According to the grounds urged by the appellants in the present appeal, the main grievance of the applicants is that the Tribunal br:low adopted very narrow minded approach, in spite of the fact that the Act is beneficial piece of legislation. Thereby they souQht for setting aside the Order and sought for an opportu n ity.

¶22

According to the ludgment filed along with the appeal and as l)er other record, it shows that O.A (II) (U) No.291 of 2013 has been filed by the applicants herein for compensation on account of Ceath of K.Venkataswamy in a train accident that occurred on 03-04-2013. The appellants No.1 and 2 are the married daughter and son of the said K.Venkataswamy.

¶23

SSRN,J C.M.A.No.329 of 2018

¶24

The said application was filed by the

¶25

appellants/applicants for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in view of the death of K.Venkataswamy, who is no other than father of the applicants. According to the allegations made in the application, it is the case of appellants herein that on O3-04-20L3, the deceased K.Venkataswamy with a view to return to Secunderabad from his Village, went to Srikakulam Road RS along with his friend and other villagers. He has purchased II Class Super Fast train journey ticket from Srikakulam road to Secunderabad and boarded Train No.12703 Howrah - Secunderabad Falaknuma Super Fast Express in a 2nd class general compartment, while the train was^proceeding towards Secunderabad, he accidentally slipped and fell from the running train between Powerpet and Vatlur railway station in the yard of Powerpet railway station due to speed,^jolts and sudden jerks of the train and he suffered severe head injury and otfier multiple fatal injuries and died on the spot in the early hours^of 04.04.20t3. In view of the said accident,^{his married daughter} and son filed the above said O.A. which was^{resisted by the} respondent i.e., General Manager, South Central^Railway, Secunderabad.

¶26

SSRN,J C.M.A.No.329 ot 2018

¶27

¶28

The respondent opposed the claim and filed written statement denving the material averments of the petition and put the applicants to strict proof of their case.

¶29

On the basis of the rival contentions, issues have been framed and matter was adjourned from time to time, for trial. However, on 19-09-2017 the application of the applicants herein was dismissed in view of the non-prosecution of the case.

¶30

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 appllcation. 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.

¶31

SSRN,J C.M.A.No.329 of²⁰¹⁸

¶32

¶33

-r-

¶34

B. 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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

It may be true that the applicants^{failed to adduce} evidence in spite of number of adjournments^{but the application}

¶38

SSRN,J C.M 4.No.329 ol 201B

¶39

cannot be decided without giving any opportunity. The appllcants are^,rntitled 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.

¶40

L2. 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.291 of 2013 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 eviderce and submitting their respective arguments. The Tribunal shall dispose of the OA within 6 (Six) months from the date of receipt of records.

¶41

With the above directions, this Civil Miscellanebus Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOt T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To, 1. The Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad Bench.(WITH^RECORDS) 2. One CC to SRl. POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY,^Advocate. IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies

¶45

One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/0912022

\ vrf,' STAIE
,L
,
, Zr ,fUU mt .+
+
.--Dx;ll'
-.-:r_-..:-:r-:.-, ,

¶51

ORDER

¶52

CMA.No. 329 of 2018

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE CMA WITH OUT COSTS

¶54

"t 5r>A,q'-

Muddad Bhavani v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muddad Bhavani 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

Vamana Ramesh Vs vanama Swarupa Rani

V.Swarlupa Rani Vs v.Ramesfh

Mohammaed Nadeem Ullah Khan Vs Mohammed Akber Ali and 2 Others

K. Leena Josna Devi Vs Union of India

J. Sreenivasulu, Mahaboobnagar Dist. and Another Vs Janampeta Bharathamma and Another

M.Susheela and 4 Others Vs Union of India