Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
Suneel Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India Thru General Manager North Central Railway - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 320 of 2016
Decided On : 17-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Manish Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent: Prashant Kumar Srivastava
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of legal heirs/legal representatives of a deceased person to claim compensation under the Railways Act, 1989 do not vanish on the death of the original applicant, and they are entitled to continue the claim as a legal representative.
Headnote:
Railways Claims Tribunal Act - Substitution of Legal Representatives - Railways Act, 1989, Section 125, 124, 124A, 123 - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, including Section 125, 124, 124A, and 123, and their interpretation in the context of the substitution of legal representatives in a claim application. The court highlighted the rights of legal heirs/legal representatives of a deceased person to claim compensation and the applicability of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Order XXII Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in continuing the proceedings by or against an individual even after death.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Suneel Kumar, appealed against the dismissal of his application for substitution of legal representatives in a claim application for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. The original applicant, Smt. Saroj Yadav, had filed the claim application for injuries sustained in a train incident, but she died during the pendency of the application. The Tribunal concluded that the right to sue for compensation ended with the death of the original applicant, leading to the abatement of the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the legal heirs of a deceased claimant are entitled to continue the claim as a legal representative, and the rights of a dependent do not vanish on the death of the dependent. The court held that the appellant was entitled to be substituted as the legal heir of the deceased claimant, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing the Tribunal to decide the claim application expeditiously.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the Railways Act, 1989, specifically regarding the right of legal representatives to continue a claim application after the death of the original applicant and the abatement of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, and the application of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Order XXII Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allow for the continuation of proceedings by or against an individual even after death.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the application for substitution of the legal heir of the deceased applicant was allowed. The Railway Claims Tribunal was directed to decide the claim application expeditiously, in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1987") against the order dated 19th January, 2016 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Claim Application No.OA/II/U/889/09, whereby the application for substitution of legal representatives was dismissed.
3. The relevant facts necessary for determination of the present appeal are that Smt. Saroj Yadav preferred an application under Section 16 of the Act, 1987 through her husband Sri Suneel Kumar (who is the appellant) for grant of compensation. The case of the claimant was that she along with her daughter Km. Shreya, three years old, was trying to get down from the train, they fell down from the train at Jaipuriya railway crossing near Kanpur Railway Station, both of them sustained injuries; due to said injuries, her daughter-Km. Shreya expired; the applicant, Smt. Saroj Yadav sustained injuries, she had undergone treatment in the hospital at Kanpur. Smt. Saroj Yadav filed an application for grant of compensation on the ground of injuries received by her in the alleged untoward incident bearing Original Application No. OA/II/U/889/09.
4. During pendency of the said application, the applicant (Smt. Saroj Yadav) died on 30.12.2012; the appellant, Suneel Kumar moved an application for substitution of her legal representative.
5. The respondent resisted the application by filing objections on the grounds, inter alia, that since Smt. Saroj Yadav preferred the application for compensation on the ground of her personal injury, the right to sue was personal and came to an end with the death of the claimant. It was also stated that the death certificate of Smt. Saroj Yadav shows the date of death as 30.12.2012, but no documentary evidence was filed by the applicant to establish that the death of the deceased occurred due to injuries sustained by her in the alleged incident dated 26.07.2009.
6. The Tribunal framed the following two questions for disposal of the application for substitution of legal representative:
(i) Whether Smt. Saroj Yadav died due to injuries sustained by her in the alleged untoward incident or her death was a natural death?
(ii) In case the death of the claimant was natural, then whether right to sue survives after her death and consequently, the applicant for substitution deserves to be allowed?
7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 19.01.2016, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the original applicant died on account of natural death. Hence, in view of the maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' right to sue for compensation on account of personal injury came to an end with the death of the original applicant, Smt. Saroj Yadav and since right to sue come to an end, the claim stands abated. Thus, the request for substitution of the applicant in place of the deceased applicant was rejected and the claim was abated.
8. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.01.2016, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to him, only such claims or reliefs as can be availed by the deceased claimants personally, would abate and not those, which can be quantified in terms of damages.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the present case relates to a contract between the deceased and the applicant, Smt. Saroj Yadav and Railways as she was a bona fide passenger of the train who got injured in an untoward incident when she accidentally fell down from the train along with her daughter at Jaipuriya railway crossing near Kanpur Railway Station, and therefore, r
