This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, assailing the order, dated 17-10-2005, in OAA.No.229 of 1999 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench. It raises an important question of law viz., whether the proceedings instituted before the Tribunal by an individual, claiming damages for the injuries received by him in an untoward incident or accident, would survive his death during the pendency of the proceedings.

2. The deceased-first appellant submitted a claim before the Tribunal, stating that he was travelling from Rajahmundry to Nidadavolu on 22-03-1999, in Train No. 8561, Link Express, and when the Train was about to stop at Nidadavolu Station, the passengers, who stood behind, pushed him, resulting in his fall between the moving train and platform No.2. It was pleaded that as a result of the fall, his left leg was run over and was later on, amputated. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was claimed as compensation.

3. The respondents resisted the claim and stated that no untoward incident, as such, has taken place at Nidadavolu Station on 22-03-1999. It was contended that the first appellant was not a bona fide passenger and even if he has fallen from the train, it is only on account of his negligence and the injuries are self-inflicted ones.

4. During the pendency of the claim petition, the first appellant died on 20-11-1997. Thereafter, the wife and minor daughter of the deceased came on record, as legal representatives. Thereafter, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues. When the claim petition came up for hearing, the Tribunal applied the principle contained in the maxim actio personalis cum moritur persona and dismissed the claim petition. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira1.

5. Sri Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the application of maxim actio personalis cum moriturpersona is not universal, but would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. He contends that only such claims or reliefs as can be availed by the deceased claimant personally, would abate and not those, which can be quantified in terms of damages. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Manjhi v. Management of Sangramgarh Colliery2 and a judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. E. Laxma Reddy (died) per LRs3.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal applied the correct principle of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court, and that no exception can be taken to the order under appeal. He contends that the claim before the Tribunal was purely personal to the claimant, and that the same does not survive the death of the claimant.

7. The claim that was initially presented by the deceased-first appellant and pursued thereafter by appellants 2 and 3, was rejected by the Tribunal, only on the ground that the proceedings abated, on account of the death of the original claimant. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal did not address itself to the merits of the claim.

8. Two provisions govern the situation that emerges on account of the death of a party to proceedings. Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short the Act) provides for continuation of the proceedings by or against an individual even after the death, subject to certain conditions. Similarly, 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. The relevant provisions read as under:

Succession Act:

"Sec.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 def