The main legal point established in the judgment is that claimants can seek compensation over and above the prescribed amount under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 upon establishing any wrongful act, neglect, or default on the part of the railway administration.

In Claim Application No. 28/OAII/RCT/NGP/2001, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur, by its judgment and order dated 13-3-2003, has directed the respondent-Railway Authorities to pay to the appellants a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of one Siju S. Vallikalayil, caused due to falling down from Train No. 2615 (G.T. Express) while travelling on 17-6-2000. This appeal is by the claimants, who are seeking further enhancement of compensation in this appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

2. The appellants/claimants have paid the Court fee of Rs. 25/-, as required by Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. It is the preliminary objection raised, based upon the decision of this Court in the case of Betel Stores by Proprietor Krishna Bonde vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1991(1) Mh.L.J. 823, urging that this is an order passed under section 16(1) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, which is an "award" within the meaning of Article 3 under Schedule I of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, and the claimants have to pay the Court fee on the amount or the value of the award sought to be set aside or modified according to the scale prescribed under Article 1 under the said Schedule, which is one-half of the amount prescribed in the scale.

3. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, has invited my attention to the proviso below sub-section (2) of section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, and has urged that the application before the Railway Claims Tribunal was for the claim under sub-section (1A) of section 13 of the said Act, and, therefore, no Court fee was payable in respect of the claim so made. According to him, the appeal is not from the decree or order having the force of the decree, and, therefore, the office was right in holding that it is governed by Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, which has been complied with by the appellants, and there is no dispute in respect thereof.

4. On merits of the matter, it is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Railway Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the claim for compensation over and above Rs. 4,00,000/-. According to him, the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- directed to be paid by the Tribunal is towards no fault liability, as contemplated under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, and that does not prevent the claimants from claiming the compensation over and above Rs. 4,00,000/- by establishing that it was due to wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration, which is the cause of death of the deceased. Further, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the claimants are not entitled to compensation over and above Rs. 4,00,000/-, which is the amount prescribed under section 124-A of the Railways Act.

5. The points for determination are as under :-

(i) Whether in an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 arising out of an application under section 16(1) read with section 13(1-A) the Court fee payable is as required by Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, or under Article 3 of Schedule I of the said Act?

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation over and above Rs. 4,00,000/- under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 upon establishing that the death in question was caused due to wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration?

6. As to point No. (i) : Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act deals with the application to the Claims Tribunal and it is reproduced below :-

16. Application to Claims Tribunal. –

(1) A person seeking any relief in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 13 may make an application to the Claims Tribunal.

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and be acc