Chitrapu Chinabapanaiah and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. This C.M.A. is filed against the order, dated 31-10-2002, of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, in I.A. No. 402 of 2002 in O.A.A. No. 84 of 1998.

2. One China Veeramma died on 15-5-1998, on account of her accidental fall from Train No. 7015. The appellants herein namely, the husband (since dead), son and daughter of late Veeramma, filed O.A.A. No. 84 of 1998 before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The claim was contested by the respondent. After taking the rival contentions into account, the Tribunal passed an order dated 18-3-2002, holding that the respondent is under obligation to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs towards compensation, on account of the death of late China Veeramma. Out of Rs. 4 lakhs, the 1st appellant was awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, 2nd appellant was awarded a sum of Rs. 1.75 lakhs and the 3rd appellant, a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The amount had since been deposited by the respondent.

3. Before the amount could be withdrawn, the 1st appellant died. The Appellants 2 and 3 filed I.A. No. 402 of 2002 under Rule 44 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Proceeding) Rules, 1989, for distribution of the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, payable to deceased-1st appellant, to them, in equal shares. Through the order under appeal the Tribunal took the view that Appellants 2 and 3 have to obtain a succession certificate from a Court of competent jurisdiction, and only that as and when such certificate is submitted, they would be paid the amount awarded to the deceased-1st appellant.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the very fact that except late China Bapanaiah and Appellants 2 and 3, none have submitted the claim petition, discloses that there are no other legal heirs either to late China Veeramma or, to late China Bapanaiah and that the Tribunal ought not to have insisted upon a succession certificate. He further contends that the question of applying for a succession would arise, if only the amount in dispute is a debt or security, and no succession certificate is necessary in respect of amounts awarded as compensation.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal had insisted upon the submission of succession certificate only with a view to secure the interests of any persons, who are otherwise entitled in law, to claim the amount payable to late China Bapanaiah. He further contends that the question as to whether there exist any will or other instrument enabling 3rd parties to claim any amount from the estate of late China Bapanaiah, can come into light, if only proceedings are initiated for succession certificate.

6. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the husband, Rs. 1.75 lakhs to the son, and Rs. 25,000/- to the daughter, of late China Veeramma, who died due to accidental fall from a train. The order of the Tribunal became final. The amount was also deposited by the respondent. Before the amount could be withdrawn, the 1st appellant i.e., the husband of late China Veeramma and father of Appellants 2 and 3 died. There did not exist any dispute as to the right of Appellants 2 and 3 to withdraw the respective amounts, awarded to them by the Tribunal. The Appellants 2 and 3 filed I.A.No. 402 of 2002 in the Tribunal claiming that, except themselves, there are no legal heirs to the deceased-1st appellant, and that they be paid the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in equal shares. The Tribunal insisted on submission of a succession certificate so as to enable the Appellants 2 and 3 to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs awarded to the deceased-1st appellant.

7. It is true that the Tribunal passed the order under appeal as a measure of precaution and to avoid any future litigation. The fact that Appellants 2 and 3 and their father alone have claimed compensation, on account of death of late China Veeramma, by itself does not establish that there are no legal heirs to the deceased-1st appellant. In case there existed any will or other instrument enabling any 3rd parties to receive the amount awarded to the deceased-1st appellant, such persons would also be entitled to be paid the amount in its entirety or its part, as may have been ordained in such instrument. The fact however, remains that any such persons, other than Appellants 2 and 3, would be entitled to receive such amount only on establishing that they are the legal representatives of the deceased-1st appellant, in relation to the said amount. Such adjudication can take place either in the proceedings before the Tribunal itself, or through an independently constituted suit.

8. Succession Certificate is issuable only in cases of debts or securities payable to a deceased individual. Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act makes it amply clear. Amount awarded as compensation to an individual is never treated as debt or security. Therefore, no succession certificate can be issued under the said Act, in relation to an amount awarded as compensation to a deceased-claimant. In Smt. Rukhsana v. Smt. Nazrunnisa, : (2000)9SCC240 , the Supreme Court held that the amount awarded, as compensation, on account of death of an individual, cannot be treated as debt or security and that the legal heirs of the person who was awarded such compensation, cannot be required to obtain succession certificate.

9. It is not disputed that the Appellants 2 and 3 are the class-I heirs of deceased-1st appellant. Their right to succeed to the assets of their father can be defeated only when a superior claim is pressed into service. As on today no such claim is forthcoming. Even if there existed any claims of 3rd parties, in relation to that amount, the payment to Appellants 2 and 3 shall be subject to such claims. The rights of the Appellants 2 and 3, cannot be defeated or delayed in anticipation of any claim by 3rd parties.

10. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order in IA No. 402 of 2002 is set aside. Consequently the I.A. shall stand allowed. It is declared that Appellants 2 and 3 shall be entitled to be paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh each, out of the compensation awarded to their father, the deceased-1st appellant. It is however, made clear that such payment shall be subject to any superior claim that may be established by 3rd parties. No costs.