Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 512
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : Pradeep Kant, V.C.Misra
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
GAURI SHANKAR - Respondent
Decided On : 05/04/2007
First Appeal From Order 765 Of 1999
Headnote:
Railways Act, 1989 – Sections 123, 124 and 125 – Railway Claims Tribunal Act – Section 23 – workmens Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 2 – Heard Sri Lalji Sinha learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Balwant Singh learned counsel for respondents – This appeal under Section 23 of railway Claims Tribunal Act has been preferred by Union of India challenging award of Rs. 4,00,000/- to dependents of deceased Smt. Dropadi Devi – In regard to first plea reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for appellant on two Division Bench judgments, namely, G. N. Bhandari Allahabad v. Railway administration, New Delhi and Charubala Saha and others v. Eastern Railway Administration and another – He has also drawn attention of Court to provisions of Sections 123, 124 and 125 of Act, 1989 – Aforementioned two judgment lay down same principle with respect to definition of dependant under act of 1890 and also to provisions of sections 82-A and 82-C of 1890 – Held, We would also like to put on record that aforesaid plea that Smt. Dropadi devi was a house wife and had no income can also not be considered by this Court as the same was not pleaded by railways before Tribunal – It is for first time that this plea is being raised before this Court – So far as second argument is concerned, we have gone through record and we find that Tribunal has given a very cogent finding on the issue that deceased was a bona fide passenger and had died because of accidental slip on account of over rush in train and death has occurred because of this accidental fall – We thus find that award cannot be interfered with, on any of aforesaid grounds – Finding recorded by tribunal are perfectly valid – There is no merit in this appeal – It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Paras 9, 10,11 and 12)
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Lalji Sinha learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Balwant Singh learned counsel for the respondents.
( 2 ) THIS appeal under Section 23 of the railway Claims Tribunal Act has been preferred by the Union of India challenging the award of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the dependents of the deceased Smt. Dropadi Devi.
( 3 ) SRI Sinha has raised mainly the following two paints for assailing the award:
1. Smt. Dropati Devi (deceased) was a house wife and was having no earning and, therefore, the claimants cannot be said to be the dependents of the deceased so as to entitle them to any compensation under the railways Act; and 2. There was no evidence on record to hold that the death occurred because of the accidental slip from the train and that it was not a case of suicide.
( 4 ) IN regard to the first plea reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on two Division Bench judgments, namely, G. N. Bhandari Allahabad v. The Railway administration, New Delhi and Charubala Saha and others v. Eastern Railway Administration and another. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the provisions of Sections 123, 124 and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989. The aforementioned two judgment lay down the same principle with respect to the definition of 'dependant' under the Indian Railways act of 1890 and also to the provisions of sections 82-A and 82-C of 1890. The Court on consideration that there was no definition of the term ' dependent' given in the Act of 1890 and Section 82-C (2), which lays down that an application for compensation under section 82-A arising out of an accident can be made by persons mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d ). clause (d) provides for filing of an application by any dependent of the deceased. The expression "dependent" assigned in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The relevant portion of Section 2 (d) is reproduced below:-"dependent" means any relative of a deceased workman, namely;
(i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) for wholly or in part dependent on he earning of the workman at the time of his death. (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) a parent other than a widowed mother.
( 5 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid definition of the dependent the Court concluded that in order to be entitled to claim compensation it is necessary that the claimant must have been dependent on the earnings of the deceased at the time of his death. The two cases referred to above thus relate to a different enactment where the definition of term 'dependent' wasnot given and therefore considering the provisions of Sections 82-C and 82-A and Section 2 (d) of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 the aforesaid pronouncements were made.
( 6 ) THE case in hand relates to the Railways act, 1989 wherein the dependent has been defined under Section 123 (b) and the relevant portion in the present case is sub-clause (i), which says:
" 123. Definition.- In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires- (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) "dependent 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;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 124 deals with the extent of liability arid Section 125 says how the application for compensation can be moved. The legal pronouncement made in the Calcutta as well as Allahabad judgment does not interpret the provisions of
