Only specified relatives defined as 'dependants' under S.123 (b) of the Railways Act are entitled to claim compensation.

1. Short issue is involved in this appeal in respect of locus standi of the appellant to get amount of compensation.

2. The facts of the present appeal can be summarised as under:
On 24.4.2014, deceased Samadhan Vibhan Bagul was travelling from Pachora to Dombivali by unknown train with valid journey ticket No. V56927800 purchased from Pachora Railway Station. As there was heavy rush in the train, the deceased was standing near the door of train compartment. However, when the train reached at KM No. 272/30-35 Up, Railway Station, Hiswal, the train received a sudden jerk and, therefore, deceased fell down from the running train and died on the spot.
Claim was filed by father and mother of the deceased, namely, Virbhan Zipruji Bagul and Vimalbai Virbhan Bagul. During the pendency of the claim petition both parents died. Therefore, the appellant (elder brother of the deceased) Deepak s/o Virbhan Bagul was brought on record as legal heir of the deceased - applicants. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that appellant is not a dependant as defined under S.123 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') and, therefore, rejected the claim. Hence, this appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Bagul, learned advocate for the appellant. He has submitted that appellant was not claimant before the Tribunal and, therefore, claim is wrongly rejected by the Tribunal holding that the appellant is not a dependant as defined under S.123 (b) of the Act. He has pointed out the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Union of India v. Phoolsaye , FAO No. 1265 of 2010; decided on 20.5.2010. He has submitted that in view of the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, the appellant is entitled for the claim.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Bagul (sic) has submitted that appellant is elder brother of the deceased. He is not a dependant as defined under S.123 (b) of the Act and, therefore, the Tribunal rejected the claim.

5. Dependant of the deceased who died in railway accident is defined under S.123 (b) of the Act which is reproduced as under:
“(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 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.”

6. Admittedly, the appellant is not a dependant as defined under S.123 (b) of the Act. Learned advocate Mr. Bagul has submitted that though he is not a dependant as defined under S.123 (b) of the Act, but in view of the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court he is entitled for compensation. Learned advocate has submitted that same fact was before Punjab and Haryana High Court. Material observations of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Union of India v. Phoolsaye , in paras 3, 4 and 5, are reproduced below:
“(3) In the present appeal, the only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that respondents are not the dependants of deceased - Kantu, therefore, the amount of compensation could not have been awarded to them. In response thereto, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the respondents who happen to be brothers of the deceased - Kantu are not the dependants of the deceased - Kantu bu