IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 04-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.23 OF 2009 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant/ Respondent. AND Panchan Kumar and four others. --- Respondents/ Applicants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.23 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) seeking to modify order dated 06-01-2009, passed in E.P. No.2 of 2008 in O.A.A. No.113 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) which reads “the order of the Tribunal dated 22-08-2007 is clear to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of the said order failing which it shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the order till realization…….. The applicants are directed to file calculation memo for the execution of the E.P. on the ground of contravening the corresponding order originally passed in the main application dated 05-06-2006, whereas the order passed in the main application reads : “In the circumstances, the R.P. as well as E.P. are dismissed and the Respondent is directed to pay the amount of compensation as ordered in the judgement dt.05-06-2006 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of the order till realization.” 2. As per the record Review Petition No.17 of 2006 was filed by the Railways before the Tribunal in order to clarify the legal heir certificate marked as Ex.A-6 therein on the ground that it was defective in nature and the respondent/applicant filed E.P. No.24 of 2006 for the execution of the decree delivered in the main application and during the process the respondent/applicant filed true legal heir certificate and hence accordingly the position was clarified. Further, subsequently E.P. No.2 of 2008 was filed in which the impugned order was passed. 3. Therefore, the point for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the Tribunal in E.P. No.2 of 2008 in O.A.A. No.113 of 2001 is in violation of the orders passed in the earlier main application and is liable to be set aside or not? 4. The Execution Court has to proceed with the Execution of the decree subject to section 47 of C.P.C. The Execution Court got no independent authority to pass any orders or pass any corresponding decree. Further, it is quite surprising that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is in violation of the earlier order passed. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that a copy of the order in the main application was received on 23-10- 2008 and therefore its implementation is to be reckoned with within 30 days there from by virtue of the earlier order. The proceedings to recover the amount commenced actually by the disposal of the review petition and not earlier in the circumstances enumerated above. Because of the pendency of the Review Petition, the applicant got no right to proceed with the order delivered in the main application earlier, as it happened to be subject to the disposal of the review petition. Therefore, the impugned order is not tenable and ultimately it is liable to be set aside. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order dated 06-01-2009, passed in E.P. No.2 of 2008 in O.A.A. No.113 of 2001 is set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 04-03-2011. Dsh. “128. Saving as to certain rights – (1) The right of any person to claim compensation under section 124 (or Section 124-A) shall not affect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), or any other law for the time being in force; but no person shall be entitld to claim compensation more than once in respect of the same accident. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the right of any person to claim compensation payable under any contract or scheme providing for payment of compensation for death or personal injury or for damage to property or any sum payable under any policy of insurance”.