THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 944 of 2010 JUDGMENT : 1. At the request of both the counsel, the appeal is being taken up for disposal. 2. This appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 17.04.2002 in O.A.A. No.89 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants was dismissed on the ground that they failed to prove that they are dependents of the deceased. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that legal heir certificate could not be secured by the appellants/claimants in time and therefore, it could not be filed in the Tribunal, and that, an opportunity may be given to the appellants to lead evidence with regard to their dependency on the deceased. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/railways opposed the same on the ground that inspite of giving a reasonable opportunity, the appellants have not adduced any evidence to show that they are dependents on the deceased. It is his further contention that, in view of laches committed by them, the railway administration cannot be mulcted with payment of interest during the pendency of the claim proceedings in case any compensation is to be awarded after letting in their evidence. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Except issue no.1, the other issues have not been decided by the Tribunal. On issue no.1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants failed to establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. The explanation given by the appellants is that they could not secure the relevant document viz. legal heir certificate, for filing it before the Tribunal. Even if there are some laches on the part of the appellants, they cannot be a ground to deny the benefits under the beneficial piece of legislation wherein compensation can be awarded consequent on the death of a person in a railway accident in an untoward accident. Considering these aspects, one more opportunity can be given to the appellants to adduce evidence that they are the dependents on the deceased. 6. However, there are some lapses on the part of the appellants in producing the relevant documents into the court to prove their dependency on the deceased. Therefore, it is made clear that the compensation, if any, to be awarded shall not carry interest during pendency of the appeal. 7. In the result, the impugned order of the Claims Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall fix a date for adducing evidence on behalf of the appellants with regard to their dependency on the deceased. On such date, the appellants shall adduce all the evidence and the railway administration shall be given an opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses on that aspect and also let in further evidence. Since the accident is of the year 2000, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, allowed. No costs. --------------------- 2.2.2011 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 944 of 2010 2.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 944 of 2010 2.2.2011 Between: …Appellant And Maliram Agarwal & others …Respondents