HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3822 of 2012 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Sri B.D. Mishra, holding brief of Sri Kamal Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to modify the order dated 27.07.2012 and enhance the compensation awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench, Gorakhpur, in Claim Case No. OA/II/275/06/GKP, Banshi Ram and Another Vs. Union of India through G.M., N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur, wherein the learned Tribunal had wrongly deducted an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and awarded only Rs.2,00,000/- instead of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son, in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that his deceased son, Dinesh Ram, after purchasing a valid railway ticket, boarded Train No. 5212, Jan Nayak Express, and was returning home from District Motihari, Bihar, on 27.07.2006. During the journey, when the train was running near Khadda Railway Station in District Kushinagar, Dinesh Ram unfortunately fell from the train on 28.07.2006 while returning from the toilet of the train due to heavy rush and jerking of the train. He sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. He, along with his wife, Jasmati Devi, filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur. The same was allowed, but an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was deducted from the total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground that, after the death of claimant No. 1, Jasmati Devi, there was no evidence to establish that the appellant was her legal heir. It was submitted that a substitution application was filed after the death of claimant No. 1, Jasmati Devi, and the same was also Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Komal Mehrotra, Kamal Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Om Prakash Mishra, Santosh Kumar Tiwari Banshi Ram And Another .....Appellant(s) Union Of India Thru G.M. N.E. Railway .....Respondent(s) allowed. However, it was held by the learned Tribunal that the appellant had failed to prove, by producing any evidence such as a Will or other document, that he was the legal heir of deceased Jasmati Devi, despite the submission that no one except the appellant was the sole surviving legal heir of deceased Jasmati Devi. It was submitted that the reason assigned by the learned Tribunal for reducing the compensation by Rs.2,00,000/- and refusing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- merely because the appellant was unable to prove himself to be the legal heir of his deceased wife, Jasmati Devi, is unsustainable. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be allowed by partly modifying the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, refusing to pay the entire amount of compensation on the ground that the appellant was unable to prove himself to be the legal heir of the deceased, does not warrant any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that the claimant had not pleaded anywhere in his petition that he was the sole legal heir of his deceased wife, Jasmati Devi, and, hence, in the absence of any evidence supporting the claimant's status as her legal heir, he was not entitled to the entire amount of compensation. It is also to be noted that the substitution application filed by the appellant/claimant seeking his substitution as the legal heir after the death of his wife, Jasmati Devi, was allowed by the learned Tribunal. The findings so recorded are perverse and contrary to the order allowing the substitution application. It is trite law that substitution proceedings in any case are primarily governed by Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person is substituted in any legal proceeding only when he is able to establish, and the Court finds, that he is a person who, in law, can represent the estate of the deceased. Once the substitution application filed by the claimant seeking his substitution as the sole legal heir after the death of his wife, Jasmati Devi, was allowed, the same, in itself, meant that the applicant was held to be a representative of deceased Jasmati Devi within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also apparent that there was no dispute regarding the matrimonial relationship between the appellant and his deceased wife. Hence, there was no reason for deducting the amount of compensation payable to the appellant. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order/award dated 27.07.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench, Gorakhpur, in Claim Case No. FAFO No. 3822 of 2012 2 OA/II/275/06/GKP is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to the entire compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, instead of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. The respondents are directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. September 25, 2026 Mukesh FAFO No. 3822 of 2012 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad