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

(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

(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 fo