Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 1368
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sudhalkar, J.
Union Of India
Versus
Kumari Diptee (Minor)
First Appeal First Order No. 1793 of 1999,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 5, 1999
Under the Railways Act, a person can only be considered a dependent of a deceased passenger for the purpose of claiming compensation if the person shows actual dependency on the deceased.
Headnote:
RAILWAYS ACT - DEPENDENCY - SEC. 123(B), 124, 125 - CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR DEATH OF MINOR BROTHERS - RESPONDENT NOT DEPENDENT ON DECEASED - AWARDS SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
Four claims were filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal for compensation due to an accident between two trains in which four family members died. The respondent, Kumari Diptee, filed claim petitions for the death of her two minor brothers, Nitin and Lokesh, which were allowed by the Tribunal. The railway administration appealed against these awards.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent could not be considered a dependent of her deceased minor brothers and therefore was not entitled to compensation under the Railways Act. The court noted that the respondent did not show that she was actually dependent on the deceased and that the definition of "dependent" in Sec. 123(b) of the Act required actual dependency.
Issues: Whether the respondent could be considered a dependent of her deceased minor brothers for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Railways Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Sec. 123(b) of the Railways Act, which defines "dependent," and held that actual dependency is required for a person to be considered a dependent. The court found that the respondent did not show that she was actually dependent on her deceased brothers and therefore could not be considered a dependent under the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and set aside the awards of the Tribunal in favor of the respondent.
1. These two appeals arise from the common judgment/award of the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). Four claims were filed before the Tribunal. Their cases No. are 0A-II/85/1999, 0A-II/86/1999, 0A-II/87/1999 and 0A-II/88/1999. The accident had taken place on 26-11-1998 near Khanna in Punjab between the golden Temple Express and Sealdah Express in which Kailash and Krishna, parents of the claimant-respondent and Nitin and Lokesh, minor brothers of the claimant respondent had died. Respondent Kumari Diptee had filed the claim petitions which are allowed by the learned Tribunal.
2. These appeals are filed only against the two awards made by the learned Tribunal in regard to the death of Nitin aged 8 years and Lokesh aged 5 years, who are the brothers of the respondent-claimant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The counsel for the appellant has argued that the claims have been wrongly awarded for the death of Nitin and Lokesh because the respondent could not have been considered as dependent on the minor brothers. He has read before me Secs. 124 and 125 of the Railways Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claim could not have been granted to the respondent-claimant because the respondent was not a dependent on the deceased. Sec.125 of the Act reads as under :-
125. Application for compensation. - (1) An application for compensation under Sec.124 (or Sec.124-A) may be made to the Claims Tribunal -(a) by the person who has sustained the injury or suffered any loss, or(b) by any agent duly authorised by such person in this behalf, or (c) where such person is a minor, by his guardian, or (d) Where death has resulted from the accident, (or the untoward incident) by any dependent of the deceased or where such a dependent is a minor, by his guardian. (2) Every application by a dependent for compensation under this Section shall be for the benefit of every dependent."
(Emphasis supplied)
5 In furtherance of his arguments that the respondent cannot be considered as a dependent, he has read over to me Sec.123(b) of the Act, which reads as under :-
"123(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 ;(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependent wholly or partly on the deceased passenger ;(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter,if wholly dependent on the deceased passenger ;(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependent on the deceased passenger".
(Emphasis supplied)
6 According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the case of the respondent does not fall under clause (i) of sub-sec.(b) of Sec.123 of the Act and it does not fall even under clause (ii) of the said sub-section because the respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the minor brothers.
7. Counsel for the respondent has read before me Sec.124 of the Act. It reads as under :-
"124. Extent of liability.-- When in the course of working in a railway, an accident occcurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, d
