APHC010232172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 417/2024 Between: 1. GUJJULA NAGARAJU, S/O. PYDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PRIVATE CAR DRIVER AND DEPENDENT, R/O. TANGELLAMUDI, JANGAREDDY-GUDEM ROAD, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 2. GUJJULA DURGA BHAVANI,, D/O. NAGARAJU, FEMALE, AGED 17 YEARS. STUDENT AND DEPENDENT, R/O. TANGELLAMUDI, JANGAREDDY-GUDEM ROAD, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 3. GUJJULA BHASKAR VENKATA SAI RAM,, S/O. NAGARAJU, AGED 16 YEARS. STUDENT AND DEPENDENT, R/O. TANGELLAMUDI, JANGAREDDYGUDEM ROAD, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.THE APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER/1ST APPLICANT AS NATURAL GUARDIAN. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, a 2 ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersmay be pleased to allow the Civil Mics. Appeal and set-aside the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in O.A ll(u) No. 330 of 2017 On the file of Honble Rail way Claim tribunal Amaravati Bench, Guntur and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of order dated 05.03.2024 in OA ll(u). No. 330 of 2017 On the file of Hon’ble Rail way Claim tribunal Amaravati Bench, Guntur and pass such Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BOMMINAYUNI APPARAO 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 417/2024 JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”), assailing the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in O.A II (u).No.330 of 2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for short “the Tribunal”), wherein claim preferred by appellants/claimants came to be dismissed in default for non-prosecution. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 4. Due to the death of Smt. Gujjala Durga, stated to have occurred on 07.06.2012 on account of alleged untoward incident at Bhongiri Railway station while she was boarding a train for journey to Eluru, the husband and children of the deceased preferred claim under Section 16 of R.C.T. Act, 1989, read with Sec. 124(A) of Railway Act, 1987, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest. The incident is stated to have occurred on 07.06.2012 and the claim was initially preferred before the Tribunal at Secunderabad on 23.05.2017. Later, after bifurcation of the State, the matter was transferred from Railway 4 Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad to Railway Claims Tribunal, Guntur. 5. The contesting respondent-Railways filed written statement on 22.04.2019 opposing the claim and also submitted reports and other documents. Issues were stated to have been framed on 25.06.2019 and the matter was thereafter posted for claimants’ evidence. It underwent multiple adjournments for the purpose of leading claimants’ evidence. Eventually, as evidence could not be adduced, the claim petition was dismissed for default on 19.09.2023. Thereafter, claimants immediately filed restoration petition within thirty days. Ultimately, though the same came to be opposed by Railways, the Tribunal, in order to provide fair opportunity, allowed the said application and restored the claim on condition that the claimants should adduce their evidence on the next date of hearing and listed the matter to 05.03.2024. As on the said date, neither claimants nor their counsel turned up, the Tribunal passed impugned order dismissing the claim petition once again for non-prosecution. Challenging the said order, present appeal is preferred. 6. Heard Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri B. Appa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 5 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claimants were not aware of the date fixed for leading evidence, as they were neither intimated by the previous counsel who conducted their proceedings nor they were aware of the earlier dismissal of the claim for non-prosecution. As first claimant’s wife deceased on account of accident occurred within the premises of Railway Station and that it was untoward incident, considering the scheme of the Act, the claimants ought to have been extended little more lenient indulgence rather than dismissing the claim for non-prosecution. He further submits that the claimants are prepared to conclude the evidence and also they would co-operate in disposal of the claim and that any conditions be imposed in order to ensure the timely disposal of the matter, besides compensating respondents for causing inconvenience, if any. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Railways opposed the aforesaid submissions by submitting that claimants were given ample opportunities to lead evidence, but they did not avail such opportunities and in fact the claim was dismissed for default, not only once but twice. Even after first dismissal, the claimants did not mend their ways to be diligent in pursuing the matter. Therefore, even if the nature of proceedings 6 were to be beneficial in nature, further indulgence would only frustrate the proceedings. 9. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 10. The present claim came to be instituted claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death of wife of the 1st claimant, said to have been on account of railway accident. The merits or otherwise of the claim are yet to be decided by the Tribunal. Initially, claim was preferred before the Tribunal at Secunderabad, State of Telangana, the same came to be transferred to Railway Claims at Guntur. The counsel, who is stated to have been engaged at Secunderabad, had to be changed on account of transfer of the proceedings. The Counsel who was engaged at Guntur did not update the claimants of ongoing proceedings. Therefore, they were stated to be kept in blank as to what was happening. In the process, claim was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.09.2023. It is also stated that they were not aware that the proceeding were yet again allowed to continue by allowing restoration application however on condition of concluding the evidence on the next date of hearing and fixed date as 05.03.2021. The claimants could not attend hearing due to lack of knowledge on that particular date, neither the counsel appeared. They have now engaged different 7 counsel to pursue the matter. The sequence of events narrated above, in the opinion of this Court, appears to be bona fide. The Claim made under the provisions of the Act being beneficial in nature, the very rejection of claim on technicalities would cause injustice to the parties. Equally, the claimants were supposed to have been diligent in the matter and they cannot take it for granted that proceedings would be taken care by their counsel alone. 11. Considering the inconvenience that would cause to respondents-railways in the process, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order on condition that the appellant/claimants shall pay costs of Rs.7,500/- to be deposited to A.P. High Court Advocate Association within four weeks. Further, the appellants shall cooperate with the Tribunal in expeditious disposal of the claim petition. 12. The Tribunal at Guntur is hereby directed to dispose of the claim as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the appellant/claimants do not cooperate and come forward to complete their part of evidence or arguments, it is open for the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders. 8 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 02.09.2025 ANS 9 278 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 417/2024 Date: 02.09.2025 ANS