L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS C. M. A. is filed against the order, dated 31-10-2002, of the railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, in la. No. 402 of 2002 in O. A. A. No. 84 of 1998.

( 2 ) ONE China Veeramma died on 15-5-1998, on account of her accidental fall from Train No. 7015. The appellants herein namely, the husband (since dead), son and daughter of late Veeramma, filed O. A. A. No. 84 of 1998 before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The claim was contested by the respondent. After taking the rival contentions into account, the Tribunal passed an order dated 18-3-2002, holding that the respondent is under obligation to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs towards compensation, on account of the death of late China Veeramma. Out of Rs. 4 lakhs, the 1st appellant was awarded a sum of rs. 2 lakhs, 2nd appellant was awarded a sum of Rs. 1. 75 lakhs and the 3rd appellant, a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00. The amount had since been deposited by the respondent.

( 3 ) BEFORE the amount could be withdrawn, the 1st appellant died. The appellants 2 and 3 filed LA. No. 402 of 2002 under Rule 44 of the Railway Claims tribunal (Proceeding) Rules, 1989, for distribution of the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, payable to deceased-lst appellant, to them, in equal shares. Through the order under appeal the Tribunal took the view that appellants 2 and 3 have to obtain a succession certificate from a Court of competent jurisdiction, and only that as and when such certificate is submitted, they would be paid the amount awarded to the deceased-lst appellant.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants submits that the very fact that except late china Bapanaiah and Appellants 2 and 3, none have submitted the claim petition, discloses that there are no other legal heirs either to late China Veeramma or, to late china Bapanaiah and that the Tribunal ought not to have insisted upon a succession certificate. He further contends that the question of applying for a succession would arise, if only the amount in dispute is a debt or security, and no succession certificate is necessary in respect of amounts awarded as compensation.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal had insisted upon the submission of succession certificate only with a view to secure the interests of any persons, who are otherwise entitled in law, to claim the amount payable to late China Bapanaiah. He further contends that the question as to whether there exist any will or other instrument enabling 3rd parties to claim any amount from the estate of late China bapanaiah, can come into light, if only proceedings are initiated for succession certificate.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 2 lakhs to the husband, Rs. 1. 75 lakhs to the son, and Rs. 25,000. 00 to the daughter, of late China Veeramma, who died due to accidental fall from a train. The order of the Tribunal became final. The amount was also deposited by the respondent. Before the amount could be withdrawn, the 1st appellant i. e. , the husband of late China veeramma and father of Appellants 2 and 3 died. There did not exist any dispute as to the right of Appellants 2 and 3 to withdraw the respective amounts, awarded to them by the Tribunal. The Appellants 2 and 3 filed I. A. No. 402. of 2002 in the Tribunal claiming that, except themselves, there are no legal heirs to the deceased-1st appellant, and that they be paid the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in equal shares. The Tribunal insisted on submission of a succession certificate so as to enable the Appellants 2 and 3 to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs awarded to the deceased-1st appellant.

( 7 ) IT is true that the Tribunal passed the order under appeal as a measure of precaution and to avoid any future litigation. The fact that Appellants 2 and 3 and their father alone have claimed compensation, on account of death of late China Veeramma, by itself does not establish that there are no legal heirs to the deceased-1st appellant. In case there existed any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document