THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2495 of 1998 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.A.A.No.61 of 1993 before Secunderabad Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), alleging that her husband, by name, Nakka Hanumantharao, who was a resident of Parlakimidi, Gajapathi District, Orissa State, was run over by a passenger train between the railway stations of Parlakimidi and Pathapatnam. The Tribunal returned the application, through its order, dated 15.09.1994, on the ground that no material was placed to show that the deceased was a passenger in the train and that the description of the respondent was improper. The same is challenged in this appeal. There is no representation for the appellant. Heard Sri B.H.R.Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant furnished necessary particulars relating to the accident. The copies of F.I.R., post-mortem report and death certificate issued by the Government Railway Police, Palasa were filed. It is not known as to whether the respondent has filed any counter-affidavit. The Tribunal did not frame any issue nor did it record the evidence of the appellant. Just on perusal of the record, it formed an opinion that Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) is not attracted to the facts of the case. It has also pointed out another defect as to the description of the parties. Ultimately, it directed return of the papers to the appellant. The whole approach of the Tribunal is untenable. Once a claim is presented, ultimately, it is for the claimant to prove the ingredients of the relevant provisions of law. The Tribunal was not at all justified in forming an opinion without conducting trial. It amounts to abdication of its functions. Secondly, the objection raised by the Tribunal for the description of the respondent is equally untenable. In case, the description was not proper, the O.A.A. ought not to have been numbered. Further, the defect is not so serious that it cannot be cured. It is not as if the Tribunal is a Court of general jurisdiction and several parties figure before it. In every O.A.A., invariably, it is the Railway Administration which figures as respondent. Any defect could have been pointed out, so that the parties can cure it. By taking a hyper-technical and lopsided view of the matter, the Tribunal has defeated the very purpose, underlying Sections 124 and 124-A of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal. It was about 15 years ago, that the papers were returned. Therefore, it is directed that in case the same advocate is not forthcoming, the Tribunal shall issue notice to the appellant, enabling her to pursue the matter afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:05.10.2009 Note: The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the appellant. (B/o) kdl