1 fa835 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.835 OF 2006 Shri Takki Safar Shaikh & Anr. ...Appellants vs. The Union of India represented by the General Manager Central Railway, Mumbai C.S.T ...Respondent Mr.G.J.Mohan Rao for the appellants Mr.A.N.Samant for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 1, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. By the impugned order, the claim made by the appellants by exercising section 124-A of the Railways Act,1989 has been dismissed by the learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal. 2 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3 The Claim Application has been summarily dismissed on the ground that certain factual details have not been incorporated in the Application. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if this Court is inclined to pass order of remand, it may be noted that the delay in disposal of the application will be on the ground of default of the appellants. As a result of delay, unnecessarily the respondent will have to pay interest if the claim application is allowed. It is not necessary to record any finding on this aspect at this stage. However, while deciding the application finally, this aspect shall be considered by the Tribunal. 2 fa835 4 I find that the approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. The relevant part of the impugned order reads thus : It has been alleged that the deceased Parvez Takki was 21 years old son of the applicants. The said person is said to have been died on 17-12-99 due to accidental fall from the train near Mumbra. The applicants have averred in Para 3 of the application that they are the parents of the deceased. However, they have nowhere pleaded that the deceased was married or unmarried but he was working in an estate agency. However, there is nothing to show what he was earning and how he was supporting the applicants financially. As such application does not disclose any cause of action for applicants to seek compensation as dependants of the deceased. The application is therefore, liable to be rejected on this ground being not maintainable. 5 From what is stated above, it appears that the order of dismissal of the application was passed at a stage when even the issues were not framed. It is true that in the application, the appellants ought to have disclosed whether the diseased was married or unmarried. If the deceased was married, then his widow will be a dependant. However, it was not necessary to incorporate the evidence regarding income of the deceased in the application . At the stage of recording of evidence, the appellants could have always produced material on record to prove the 3 fa835 income of the deceased. 6 It is always the duty of the claimants to state the names of all the dependants in the Claim Application irrespective of the fact where they are parties to the application or not in view of section 125 of the said Act,1989. 7 As the claim application has been dismissed summarily, by remanding the application to the Tribunal, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the appellants to carry out amendment to the claim application for incorporating the necessary details. 8 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and Award is quashed and set aside and the claim application no.OA 2003 059 is restored to the file of the Claims Tribunal. ii)It will be open for the appellants to carry out amendment to the claim application within a period of six weeks from the date on which writ of this Judgment is received by the Tribunal iii) After the amendment is carried out, the claim application shall be decided in accordance with law. iv)The Appeal is allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE