1 90 fa.1715.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1751 OF 2010 1. Chintaman Pandurang Gaikwad, 2. Smt. Leela Chintaman Gaikwad. ... Appellants Versus The Union of India. ... Respondent ----- Mr. G.J.Mohan Rao for the Appellants. Mr. Kiran Kandpile for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 02 nd August, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 Notice for final disposal was issued on 18 th April, 2011. 3 By the impugned order, the claim petition filed by the Appellants under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has been dismissed. The 2 90 fa.1715.10 Appellants claim to be the parents of the deceased, who allegedly died due to an untoward incident. One of the findings recorded by the Tribunal is that there was no evidence adduced by the Appellants to prove that they were the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal held that unless the Appellants prove that they were the dependents of the deceased within the meaning of Section 123 of the said Act, the Appellants will not be entitled to claim any compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants seeks order of remand with a direction to the Tribunal to given an opportunity to the Appellants to lead further evidence. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent opposes the prayer for remand. His submission is that more than sufficient opportunity was available to the Appellants to lead evidence. He submitted that after remand, if the Appellants succeed in the claim application, the Respondent – Railway will have to pay interest from 18 th September, 2002 onwards. 3 90 fa.1715.10 5 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. At one place, the learned Member of the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased died due to an untoward incident and that he was a bona-fide passenger. But on account of failure of the Appellants to prove that they were the parents of the deceased, in paragraph No.10 of the impugned judgment and order, the learned Member of the Tribunal has observed that the Issue Nos.1 to 3 will have to be answered in negative. 6 Considering the fact that the claim is made under Section 124-A of the said Act, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the Appellants to adduce evidence. It will be always open for the Respondent to contend before the Tribunal that as the Appellants themselves have delayed the proceedings, they are not entitled to claim interest from the date of filing of the claim application. 7 Hence, I pass the following order : 4 90 fa.1715.10 i. The impugned judgment and order dated 11 th August, 2010 is quashed and set aside and Case No. OA 2002/490 is remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal for a fresh decision ; ii. It will be open for the Appellants to adduce evidence. It will be also open for the Respondent to adduce evidence in rebuttal ; iii. The objection of the Respondent to the entitlement of the Appellants to interest is expressly kept open ; and iv. The appeal is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]