The definition of 'dependant' under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989, is exhaustive; legal heirs not specifically enumerated cannot claim compensation, and this special legislation overrides the general provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the Order dated 23.06.2025 in unnumbered OA NO. of 2025 vide E Filing No. 202503201746000, before the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, and allow the present Civil Revision Petition and pass

The Court made the following Order:

The brother of the petitioner herein had passed away, on 06.06.2022, on account of an accident, while travelling in a train, due to falling down from the running train. The petitioner being the elder brother of the deceased person, had filed a claim, before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati. In the claim petition, the petitioner had specifically stated that, the mother of the petitioner and the deceased person, had passed away, on 01.04.1990 and that, their father had passed away, on 11.07.2003, leaving the petitioner herein as the only legal heir of the deceased person. The Railway Claims Tribunal, by an Order, dated 23.06.2025, had dismissed the claim, on the ground that, the petitioner was not a dependant, as defined under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 and consequently, the claim petition was not maintainable.

The petitioner being aggrieved by this Order of Dismissal, has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

Sri M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the petitioner, would assail the said Order of Dismissal, on two grounds. Firstly, an adequate opportunity of demonstrating the dependency had not been given to the petitioner and the petition had been dismissed without any enquiry. Consequently, the definition of dependant set out in Section 123(b) would have to be read in an expansive manner and any such reading would bring the elder brother of the deceased person also within the ambit of a dependant and consequently, the claim petition would be maintainable.

The learned counsel, relying upon a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Union of India Vs. N. Kantabai¹2003 (6) ALD 40 : 2003 (2) AnWR 275 : 2005 ACJ 1280, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay in First Appeal No.50 of 2015, dated 19.06.2025, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of General Manager Northern Railway Vs. Suresh , 2009 1 KLT (SN) 4; 2009 KHC 4368, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated 10.10.2022, in First Appeal No.68 of 2021, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad, dated 05.09.2018, in First Appeal from Order No.412 of 2004 and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Dhyan Singh & Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2009 AIR (P & H) 56, would contend that, the definition set out in Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989, should be construed liberally so as to include a legal heir to claim compensation, when none of the dependants enumerated in Section 123(b) are unavailable.

Considering the said judgments, it is necessary to extract Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as follows:

“123(b) “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 pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;

(iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;

(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.”

In the case of Union of India Vs. N. Kantabai and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in First Appeal No.68 of 2021, the married daughter of the deceased person had approached the Ra