Only a dependent of a bona fide passenger is entitled to get compensation under Section 82-A of the Railways Act.

K. C. AGARWAL, J.: - This appeal under Section 82-F, Indian Railways Act has been filed against the judgment of the ad hoc Claims Commissioner, Northern Railway, Allahabad, dismissing the claim petition of the appellant filed under Section 82-A of the aforesaid Act.

2. The facts briefly were that Vinod Kumar Bhandari, who was the son of the appellant, was travelling by 14 Dn. Upper India Express on the 31st October, 1974 when the train met with an accident near Manoharganj railway station of the Northern Railway. He died on the spot. His dead body was, thereafter, removed by G.R.P., from the scene of accident to the mortuary of Swarup Rani Hospital where it was identified on 2-11-1974. The dead body was then handed over to the appellant by a Sub-Inspector after proper identification. The appellant claimed that the deceased was 22 years of age and had graduated in Mechanical Engineering, Roorkee University with first division in the year 1973 and was returning from Delhi after attending an interview. He asserted that as the appellant was dependent of the deceased Vinod Kumar Bhandari, he was entitled to receive Rs.90,000/- as compensation. The claim was contested by the defendant and the right of the appellant to receive compensation was denied inter alia on the ground that Vinod Kumar Bhandari was not since a bona fide passenger, he was not entitled to compensation. The second was that the appellant, being not "dependent", could not get the compensation in the present proceedings. On these two controversies, issues 1 and 3 were framed by the ad hoc Claims Commissioner. Both of these issues were decided by the Claims Commissioner against the appellant and the claim petition was rejected. Hence, the appeal.

3. The first submission made by Sri R.A. Sharma, counsel for the appellant, was that the Claims Commissioner erred in holding that the deceased Vinod Kumar Bhandari was not a bona fide passenger. He contended that the evidence showed to the contrary. According to his submission, the presumption under S.114, Evidence Act, was that the deceased had the necessary ticket with him and that he was bona fide passenger. It was submitted that since he was returning from Delhi after interview, he could not possibly travel without ticket.

4. Contending on behalf of the respondent about a bona fide passenger, counsel relied on a decision of the Division Bench reported in Smt. Yashoda v. Union of India, (AIR 1979 All 287). This decision lays down that only a "dependent" of a bona fide passenger is entitled to get compensation. As the appeal will fail on the second ground which we will mention presently, we do not wish to give final opinion on this controversy. To us, it appears that the assessment of evidence made by the ad hoc Commissioner that the deceased Vinod Kumar Bhandari was not a bona fide passenger is not satisfactory.

5. The second question raised was that the appellant was not a dependent", hence his claim was not maintainable. Section 82 C lays down that an application for compensation under S.82-A arising out of an accident can be made by persons mentioned in cls.(a) to (d). Clause (d) provides for filing of an application by any dependent of the deceased. The expression dependent" is not defined in the Railways Act. Explanation to S.82-C adopts the definition of expression "dependent" assigned in cl.(d) of S.2 of the Workmens Compensation Act 1923.

The relevant portion of S.2 (d) is reproduced below: -

Dependent" means any relative of a deceased workman, namely;

(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(iii) for wholly or in part dependent on the earning of the workman at the time of his death.

(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(b) a parent other than a widowed mother.

6. From the above, it would appear that in order to be entitled to claim compensation, it is necessary that the claimant must have been wholl