Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ranjeet Singh Through Lrs vs Union Of India on 4 May, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2713/2012
Ranjeet Singh (since deceased) S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand, through
legal representatives,
1/1 Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Sultan, aged 42 years
1/2 Smt. Prem Bai, W/o Ramesh Chand, aged 40 years
Both R/o Ward No.3, Harijan Basti, Village Mangrol, District
Baran (Rajasthan)
----Appellant-applicant
Versus
Union Of India through Western Central Railway Jabalpur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
Reportable
04/05/2022
Instant appeal has been submitted by the applicant- appellant against the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2012 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench-Jaipur (for short ' Tribunal') by which the claim petition filed by the injured-Ranjeet has been rejected on the ground that during the pendency of the claim petition, the injured-Ranjeet expired and his legal representatives could not be allowed to continue claim petition.
Brief facts of the case are that the Original Application was filed by the injured-Ranjeet before the Tribunal stating therein (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) (2 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012] that after purchasing a second class railway journey ticket on 20.06.2009, he boarded in train No.1735 (Kota - Damoh Passenger) and accidentally he fell down from the train near Baran Station and sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was admitted in a hospital and after discharge, he filed claim for getting compensation.
During the pendency of the claim petition, the injured died on 19.10.2009. After the death of the injured, the parents of the injured namely, Ramesh Chand and Prem Bai submitted an application for substituting them as legal representatives of the injured/deceased-claimant.
The Railway Authorities opposed the application and prayed for dismissal of the same.
After hearing both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the present case there was no claim for loss of estate and the entire claim was based on perverse claim of the deceased. Hence the Original Application cannot be continued by the legal representatives and after death of the original applicant, the claim petition was held to be not maintainable and the application filed by the applicant was rejected and the claim petition was also rejected.
Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hansraj Vs. Union of India (FAO No.304/2017) decided by the Delhi High Court, Virendra Kumar Tiwar Vs. Union of India : 2017 (2) TAC 16 (ACC) decided by the Allahabad High Court & Arthamudi Ramu & Ors. Vs. Union of India : 2008 ACJ 1659 wherein the Courts (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) (3 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012] have held that claim petition filed by the injured is not abated after his death and his legal representative can continue the same.
Heard and considered the argument of counsel for the appellant-claimant.
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
Heard and considered the arguments.
In this case, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by the original applicant-Ranjeet. Ranjeet was alive when the claim was filed for seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him. During pendency of this claim petition, he died. This his parents (applicants) submitted application for their substitution as legal representatives of the claimant. But the tribunal rejected the application by observing that the original claimant has died.
Before adverting the facts of the present case, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Railways Act, 1989.
Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accident. Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for filing an application for compensation. The same reads as under:-
"125. Application for compensation.--(1) An application for compensation under section 124 [or section 124A] may be made to the Claims Tribunal-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury or suffered any loss, or (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) (4 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012]
(b) by any agent duly authorised by such person in this behalf, or
(c) where such person is a minor, by his guardian, or
(d) where death has resulted from the accident, [or the untoward incident] by any dependant of the deceased or where such a dependant is a minor, by his guardian. (2) Every application by a dependant for compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every other dependant"
Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 provides the accident of liability and compensation on account of untoward incident. The same reads as under:-
"124. Extent of liability.--When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident.
124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident. -- When in the course of working a railway an untoward (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) (5 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012] incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to--
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident."
Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 defines the expression 'independent' as under:-
"123. Definitions.--In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in section 124;
(b) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:--
(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;
(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) (6 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012] child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;
(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;
(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.
(c) "untoward incident" means-- (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
The expression 'dependant' is to be understood as defined under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act 1989 "unless the context otherwise requires" as can be seen from Section 123 which starts with the words "In this chapter unless the context otherwise requires". An application under Section 125 (1)(a) can be made by the person who has sustained the injury or suffered any loss. Section 124 deals with injury suffered or loss of property. There is no reason to assume that the legal heirs/representatives of a deceased passengers will not be entitled to claim compensation. If Section 125 (1)(a) is considered in any narrow sense, that would mean that even if a deceased has suffered loss of property, his legal heirs cannot stake a claim under Section 125(1)(a). That would certainly be an unjust and absurd (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) (7 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012] construction. Negligence of the Railways is implicit in Section 124 though proof is dispensed. If two trains collide or one gets derailed or other similar accident take place, negligence is transparently there on the part of the railways and the dispensation of the obligation to proof negligence does not alter the nature of liability. In such a case to say that only the owner of the goods and not his legal heirs/legal representatives will be entitled to claim compensation, would be patently unjust. Hence, the expression "person who has suffered a loss appearing" in clause (a) of Section 125 (1) will certainly have to include the legal heirs/legal representatives of such deceased person who have suffered loss.
At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Order XXII Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C."). Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides for continuation of the proceedings by or against an individual even after the death, subject to certain conditions. Order XXII Rules 1 and 3 of C.P.C. provides for the consequences of the death of a party to proceedings and the steps to be taken, in that context. Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as under:-
"306. Demands and rights of action of or against deceased survive to and against executor or administrator.--All demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against his executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation, assault, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or other personal injuries not causing the death of (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) (8 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012] the party; and except also cases where, after the death of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory."
Order XXII Rules 1 and 3 of C.P.C. read as under:-
"1. No abatement by party's death if right to sue survives.--The death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives.
3. Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiff or of sole plaintiff.--(1) Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to the sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit.
(2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff."
It is settled law that Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is substantive in nature and Order XXII of C.P.C. is procedural. The object of application for substitution of legal heirs/legal representative is to continue the proceedings.
It is pertinent to mention here that in Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989, there is no specific provision as to what will happen when the dependant of a victim of an accident expires during pendency of the claim application. There is no provision of (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) (9 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012] abatement or extinction of the claim of a dependant on his/her death. The rights of a dependent cannot vanish into thin air or disappear merely because death of the dependent takes place, during pendency of the claim application. There is no provision in Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 that a dependent where the context so requires cannot include the legal heirs of a deceased dependent. The general provisions of law relating to inheritance and succession are not touched by the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989.
Under the general law, a legal heir claiming under a dependent is entitled to continue the claim as a legal representative. Similarly, a claim which the dependent can be continued by the legal heir/legal representative of a deceased i.e., one claiming under the deceased dependent.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'M. Veerappa vs. Evelyn Sequeira and others', (1988) 1 SCC 556 after considering the provisions of Order XXII Rules 1 and 3 of the C.P.C. and Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and various judgments held as follows:-
"If the entire suit claim was founded on torts, the suit would undoubtedly abate. If the action was founded partly on torts and partly on contract, then, such part of the claim as related to torts would stand abated and the other part would survive. If the suit claim was founded entirely on contract, then, the suit had to proceed to trial in its entirety and be adjudicated upon."
In Shri Rameshwar Manjhi's V/s Management of Sangaramgarh reported in 1994 (1) SCC 292, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various judgments and approved the (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) (10 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012] views expressed in 'Gwalior Rayons Mayoor vs. Labour Court', (1978) 2 LLJ 118 (Ker) and 'Management of Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad vs. The Workmen of Bank of Baroda', (1979) 2 LLJ 57 (Guj). In the said case, the issue was, as to whether the claim of an employee, which was pending before the authorities, under the relevant statutes would abate on his death. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"13. It is thus obvious that the applicability of the maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' depends upon the 'relief claimed' and the facts of each case. By and large the industrial disputes under Section 2-A of the Act relate to the termination of services of the concerned workman. In the event of the death of the workman during pendency of the proceedings, the relief of reinstatement, obviously, cannot be granted. But the final determination of the issues involved in the reference may be relevant for regulating the conditions of service of the other workmen in the industry. Primary object of the Act is to bring industrial peace. The Tribunals and Labour Courts under the Act are the instruments for achieving the same objective. It is, therefore, in conformity with the scheme of the Act that the proceedings in such cases should continue at the instance of the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased workman. Even otherwise there may be a claim for back wages or for monetary relief in any other form. The death of the workman during pendency of the proceedings cannot deprive the heirs or the legal representatives of their right to continue the proceedings and claim the benefits as successors to the deceased workman."
It is noteworthy to mention here that the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 gives a clear indication (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) (11 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012] justifying that the right to claim compensation by a dependent does not get abated or extinguished on the death of the dependent. The Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 clearly indicates that there can be substitution of a deceased party to the proceedings by his legal representatives. The same reads as under:-
"26. Substitution of legal representatives.--(1) In the case of death of a party during the pendency of the proceedings before Tribunal, the legal representatives of the deceased party may apply within ninety days of the date of such death for being brought on record. (2) Where no application is received from the legal representatives within the period specified in sub-
rule(1), the proceedings shall abate: Provided that for good and sufficient reasons shown, the Tribunal may allow substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased."
From perusal of Rule 26, it is clear that it applies to all claims made by the applicants under Section 125 including dependents who stake the claim under Section 125(1)(d) of the Railways Act, 1989. That being so, Rule 26 is, therefore, a clinching indication that the law did not expect the claim of dependent/claimant to come to an end when the death of such dependent/claimant. If the legal heirs under Rule 26 can get impleaded and substituted to continue the claim, there can be no justification for the theory that the claim ends or dies with the dependent/claimant. During pendency of this claim petition, he died, then his parents (applicants) submitted application for their substitution as legal representatives of the claimants. But the (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) (12 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012] Tribunal rejected the application by observing that the original claimant has died and the present applicants have not disclosed the cause of death.
The Tribunal is supposed to evaluate the mere facts after recordings the evidence of both sides that whether there was any nexus between the injuries and the cause of death or not.
In view of the several judgments delivered in the cases of Hansraj (supra), Virendra Kumar Tiwar (supra) & Arthamudi Ramu (supra), the Courts have taken a view that even after the injured died during the pendency of the claim, then the right to sue survive because the right to sue in favour of the deceased crystalises when the claim petition was filed because entitlement of the injured was for compensation and an entitlement to compensation being an entitlement of money, cannot abated on account of death of the injured-claimant in the claim petition. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned order.
In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2012 is quashed and set aside with direction to the Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with law as to whether or not the claimants (parents of the injured- deceased) are entitled to get compensation for the injuries sustained by injured-Ranjeet in the train accident.
Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 31.05.2022.
In view of the aforesaid observations made above, the appeal stands disposed of.
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM)
(13 of 13) [CMA-2713/2012] All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J PRAVESH/4 (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:36:46 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)