Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Statutory rights through the course of procedural laws are transformed into actionable claims and that is how procedure is termed as handmaids of justice. A right without a remedy is virtually no right in the eye of law but a right in each case has to viewed in the light of corresponding duty and social insurance/economic security.

2. The present dispute fallen in the lap of this Court is in the background of a head injury and major fracture that was sustained by the real son of appellant during a rail accident. The injured who was a bachelor succumbed to the said injuries during pendency of claim which was instituted by him through his father as an agent. The claimant died intestate. The appellant being a dependent of the deceased made an application in pending proceedings i.e. case No. OA/II/U/720/10 of 2010 wherein a prayer for substitution of mother (Smt. Sumitra Rani) as well as appellant (father) was made as is evident in Para 6(a) of the application. The application came up for decision before Railway Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) constituted under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 but was rejected on the ground that cause did not survive within the scope of Section 306 of Indian Succession Act as per the maxim ‘actio personalis moritur cum persona’ being it a case of personal injury.

3. For arriving at such a conclusion the Tribunal has referred to the Apex Court judgement reported in AIR 1967 SC 1124 and 1986 ACJ 440 as well as the judgement reported in AIR 2010 Madras 22 and AIR 1986 Cal. 224.

Learned counsel for opposite party at the very outset raised a preliminary objection against maintainability of present appeal on the ground that an appeal would not be maintainable at the instance of appellant who is father of the deceased claimant and the claim, even if it is taken to be maintainable, the FAFO ought to have been filed by mother of the deceased claimant being an exclusive legal successor as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This objection raised by learned counsel for opposite party was scanned in the light of prayer made in the application and referring to Para 6 (a) of the application, it is seen that relief prayed by the revisionist is for impleadment of Smt. Sumitra Rani, mother of the deceased claimant and appellant both. In case impleadment application was found maintainable and allowed, the mother certainly would have been substituted in pending proceedings alongwith the appellant and there would not have been a resultant defect in the title of FAFO. Regard being had to the objection raised, appellant was permitted to implead Smt. Sumitra Rani, mother of the deceased claimant as a co-appellant in this FAFO filed against the order dated 7.10.2011.

4. In view of above, the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for opposite party stands rectified.

Now coming to main issue i.e. as to whether right to continue the proceedings instituted under Section 125 of Railways Act, 1989 survives in an injury case after the death of claimant and as to whether the same can be continued by a legal representative of a deceased claimant or not, is the vital question that has cropped up in the present appeal.

5. Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgement has argued that the provisions of Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 firstly have no application in the present case for the reason that the proceedings before the Tribunal emanate from a self contained code i.e. the Railways Act, 1989 and are regulated under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the rules framed thereunder and secondly it is well-settled that Section 306 will have no application where the liability arises out of a contract. In support of his contentions he cited the following case laws.

1. Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel v. Joseph Francis Mewan, 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 5453;

2. Arthamudi Ramu and others