1. The present First Appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking for quashing and setting aside the direction issued in the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 31.07.2009 in O. A. No.0100023 and modification to the extent that the succession certificate is not necessary. During the pendency of the First Appeal, father expired and, therefore, now appellant No.2/2 – Devendra Ramanlal Vankar is only surviving heir.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.U. M. Shastri for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.Ravi Karnavat for the respondent.
3. It transpires from the facts that the aforesaid O.A. No.0100023 was filed for claim in respect of the death of deceased son who had died in railway accident and who was unmarried. However, during the pendency of the claim before the Tribunal, the mother had expired and, thereafter, in pending proceedings the brother of the deceased i.e. another son of the original claimants (parents) had filed an application before the Tribunal for joining him as the legal heir and representative of the appellant No.2 (mother) which was granted vide order dated 01.04.2009 which is produced on record. Therefore, when the brother has already been permitted to be joined in the proceedings as the heirs of the mother, naturally, he would be entitled for the claim which has been allowed by the Tribunal and such direction to produce the succession certificate may not be included in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Therefore, the present appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. The direction issued in the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 31.07.2009 in O. A. No.0100023 for production of the succession certificate is hereby quashed and set aside. The brother of the deceased who has already been joined by the Tribunal as the legal heirs of the respondent No.2 – mother during the pendency of the proceedings is allowed to withdraw the claim amount on usual terms after proper verification.
5. It is clarified that at the time of disbursement, the appellant No.2/2 may file an undertaking before the Railway Claims Tribunal stating that in case there is any claim lodged in respect of this very amount by anyone as heirs of the deceased, he would reimburse the amount.
6. With the aforesaid observation and clarification, the present appeal accordingly stands partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
[ RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. ] vijay