( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the Union of India, represented by its general Manager, South Central Railway, secunderabad, against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, in o. A. A. No. 49 of 1997 on the ground that the date of accident has not been correctly mentioned by the claimant and that since the claimant is the married daughter of the deceased, she cannot be treated as dependent, and therefore, she is not entitled to make any claim for compensation. The Railway Claims Tribunal accepted the date of accident as 16-4-1997 in view of the correction made by the claimant with the permission of the Court from 17-4-1997 to 16-4-1997. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the appellant that the claimant is not entitled for compensation on the ground that there was variation of date of accident. The second point that was urged by the appellant is that since the claimant is the married daughter of the deceased, she cannot be treated as dependant of the deceased. The claimant filed a legal heir certificate to prove that she is the daughter of the deceased. The relationship is not disputed by the appellant. It is also an undisputed fact that the applicant was married and she was 35 years old by the date of accident. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the applicant did not adduce any evidence to the effect that she was dependant on the deceased as on the date of the accident, she cannot be treated as the dependant, and therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation.

( 2 ) SECTION 123, Clause (b) of the Railways Act, 1989 {for short the Act ) defines the dependant, and it reads as follows : "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely: (I) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (II) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a predeceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (III) a minor child of a predeceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (IV) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.

( 3 ) IN Section 123 (b), Clause (i) the dependants are mentioned as wife, husband, son and daughter. In sub-clause (ii) it is mentioned that in case of death of a passenger his parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a predeceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger, but similar wording is not used in respect of the relations of the deceased mentioned in sub-clause (i ). Had the framers of the Act intended to put the clause mentioned in sub-clause (ii) also to sub-clause (i), they would not have failed to mention the same in sub-clause (i ). Therefore, on a plain reading of the Section it can be safely concluded that in respect of wife, husband, son and daughter, there is no condition that they should wholly or partly dependant on the deceased passenger. Since the applicant in this case is no other than the daughter of the deceased, she can be termed as dependant as defined under Section 123 (b) sub-clause (i) of the Act.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of a single Bench of punjab and Haryana High Court in Union of India v. Kumari Diptee, AIR 2000 Pandh 105, wherein the Punjab and Haryana High court held that the claimant, who is the sister of a minor brother, who died in the accident, cannot be treated as dependant on minor brothers and the claim cannot be maintained by the sister in connection with the death of minor brothers. This decision is no way helpful to the appellant regarding his contention that the married daughter cannot be treated as the dependant. In charubala Saha v. Eastern Railway Administration, AIR 1988 Calcutta 327 a Division bench of Calcutta High Court held that under Sectio