Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. - (1.) Statutory rights through the course of procedural laws are transformed into actionable claims and that is how procedure is termed as handmaids of justice. A right without a remedy is virtually no right in the eye of law but a right in each case has to viewed in the light of corresponding duty and social insurance/economic security.
(2.) The present dispute fallen in the lap of this Court is in the background of a head injury and major fracture that was sustained by the real son of appellant during a rail accident. The injured who was a bachelor succumbed to the said injuries during pendency of claim which was instituted by him through his father as an agent. The claimant died intestate. The appellant being a dependent of the deceased made an application in pending proceedings i.e. case no. OA/II/U/720/10 of 2010 wherein a prayer for substitution of mother (Smt. Sumitra Rani) as well as appellant (father) was made as is evident in Para 6(a) of the application. The application came up for decision before Railway Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) constituted under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 but was rejected on the ground that cause did not survive within the scope of Section 306 of Indian Succession Act as per the maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' being it a case of personal injury.
(3.) For arriving at such a conclusion the Tribunal has referred to the apex court judgement reported in AIR 1967 SC 1124 and 1986 ACJ 440 as well as the judgement reported in AIR 2010 Madras 22 and AIR 1986 Cal. 224 . Learned counsel for opposite party at the very outset raised a preliminary objection against maintainability of present appeal on the ground that an appeal would not be maintainable at the instance of appellant who is father of the deceased claimant and the claim, even if it is taken to be maintainable, the FAFO ought to have been filed by mother of the deceased claimant being an exclusive legal successor as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This objection raised by learned counsel for opposite party was scanned in the light of prayer made in the application and referring to Para 6 (a) of the application, it is seen that relief prayed by the revisionist is for impleadment of Smt. Sumitra Rani, mother of the deceased claimant and appellant both. In case impleadment application was found maintainable and allowed, the mother certainly would have been substituted in pending proceedings along with the appellant and there would not have been a resultant defect in the title of FAFO. Regard being had to the objection raised, appellant was permitted to implead Smt. Sumitra Rani, mother of the deceased claimant as a co-appellant in this FAFO filed against the order dated 7.10.2011.;