KIRAN DAMODAR PAYGODE Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-198
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 10,2022

Kiran Damodar Paygode Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Appeal under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (R.C.T. Act" for short) questions the legality and correctness of order dtd. 18/7/2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal at Mumbai.
(2.)Brief reference to facts may be necessary to assess the precise case of the appellant. . Damodar Ganpat Paygode died due to accidental falling from the train carrying passengers. His mother- Lakshmibai, wife-Indubai and two sons-Kiran Paygode and Santosh Paygode (appellants herein), all "dependents" within the meaning of Sec. 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 were granted compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000.00under Sec. 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, at Mumbai, vide order dtd. 16/3/2009. It appears, compensation in the sum of Rs.1,54,994.00 was awarded to, Indubai Damodar Paygode and Rs.1,00,000.00 to Lakshmi Ganpat Paygode. However, before receiving the compensation, Lakshmibai and Indubai, both passed away on 2/7/2009 and 10/7/2009. Record reveals, compensation amount, sent to Indubai and Lakshmibai by post was returned "unclaimed", reporting recipients were dead. It is appellant's case that, due to inadvertence, they did not lay their claim over the unclaimed compensation. In the circumstances, the appellants moved Misc. Application No. 9/2014 purportedly filed under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 26(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 ("R.C.T. Rules" for short). Purport of the application was that, after the death of Lakshmibai and Indubai, unclaimed compensation of Rs.1,54,994.00 and Rs.1,00,000.00 stood transferred, to them, by 'operation of law', being legal heirs and representatives of Indubai and Lakshmibai. On this premise, appellants requested the Tribunal to direct Railway Administration, to pay Rs.2,54,994.00 to them. The learned Member of the Tribunal, vide order dtd. 18/7/2014 rejected the application on two grounds; namely, (I) that application purportedly filed under Rule 26(1) of the R.C.T. Rules was beyond the period of 90 days and (ii) since appellants have received their share in compensation, they were no more "dependents". Feeling aggrieved by that order, this Appeal is preferred.
(3.)Heard learned Counsel for the parties.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.