Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kusum Tiwari D/O Late Shri Ram Kumar ... vs Union Of India on 12 January, 2026
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2586
1 MA-1859-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 12th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1859 of 2021
SMT. KUSUM TIWARI D/O LATE SHRI RAM KUMAR MISHRA AND
OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri Aparna Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the respondent.
Reserved on : 06.01.2026
Pronounced on: 12.01.2026
ORDER
The appellants are aggrieved of the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal (for short, "the Tribunal") in Case No.OA/IIu/BPL/2013/0397. By the impugned order, the review application of appellants filed under Section 32(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 was dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 24.01.2020.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Sehdev Prasad Mishra died in an untoward railway accident and a claim was preferred by his wife Smt. Durghatiya and his two daughters, namely Smt. Kusum Tiwari and Smt. Jyoti Dwivedi, before the Tribunal. These two daughters are the appellants herein. The Tribunal allowed the claim application Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 13-01-2026 12:11:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2586 2 MA-1859-2021 no.OA/IIu/BPL/2013/0397 vide order dated 10.07.2018 and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of all the three claimants. Later, a review petition was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal informing that wife of Sehdev Prasad Mishra, namely Smt. Durghatiya, was already dead before passing of the award as her date of death was 03.01.2017. Resultantly, a request was made to review the award and modify it by directing that the compensation award shall be disbursed between the two appellants in equal parts. The review petition was dismissed on 04.03.2020 by observing that the clear direction given on 20.12.2019 regarding personal presence of at least one of the applicants was not complied with.
3. In the present appeal, grounds of agitation are that learned Claims Tribunal was in error in dismissing the entire case while death of Durghatiya prior to the passing of award was not of such legal consequence that the review petition would fail. On similar facts, a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court had allowed the appeal of Smt. Lalita Bai v. Union of India (M.A. No.1109/2017 decided on 02.05.2017)), therefore a request has been made to allow the appeal and modify the compensation award passed by the Tribunal.
4. Counsel representing the respondent has contended that appellants themselves were guilty of not complying with the directions of the Tribunal and, therefore, no interference is warranted in this appeal.
5. On perusal of record and considering the submissions made by counsel for both the sides, it can be observed that by concealing the death of Durghatiya during the pendency of claim petition the appellants have not Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 13-01-2026 12:11:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2586 3 MA-1859-2021 committed any fraud on the Tribunal nor have obtained a compensation award of higher value than what they were originally entitled for. There was definitely a lapse on their part in not informing the Tribunal about the death of Durghatiya but even if that was informed, the award of Rs.8,00,000/- would still have been passed in the claim petition. The only difference would have been of the number of beneficiaries. Consequently, this Court is of the view that appellants did not deserve any penal or legal action for withholding the information about the death of their mother.
6. Record of the Tribunal reveals that on 27.12.2019 the Tribunal directed that one of the claimants shall remain present on next hearing to give details of legal heirs and also to explain why the death of claimant no.1 was informed with such a delay. This order was not complied with on subsequent dates and, therefore, the review petition was dismissed. It is evident from record that the Tribunal ignored the fact that deceased Durghatiya would not be having any other legal heir of Class I category in addition to her two daughters who were already on record as claimants. Had there been any other legal heirs of Class I category of Durghatiya, they would also have been the Class I category legal heirs of her husband Sehdev and would have been impleaded as claimants in the claim petition filed for the accidental death of Sehdev. Without considering this important aspect the Tribunal, hurriedly and without giving due consideration to the application, dismissed it. Thus, the order dated 04.03.2020 deserves to be set aside.
7. In the case of Lalita Bai (Supra) one of the claimants had died during the pendency of claim and still the award was passed in his favour. The co-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 13-01-2026 12:11:11NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2586 4 MA-1859-2021 ordinate Bench observed that succession certificate from his legal representatives was not required and directed that the entire amount be paid to the other claimant. Similar are the facts of the present case therefore, allowing the appeal, it is directed that the amount of compensation be disbursed between the appellants, who shall produce the original death certificate of claimant Durghatiya to satisfy the Tribunal that they are legally entitled to receive her share of compensation.
8. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
9. A copy of this order along with the record be send back to the Tribunal for necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE ps Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 13-01-2026 12:11:11