Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Kumari Diptee (Minor) on 5 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000ACJ1179, (2000)124PLR477, AIR 2000 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 105, (2000) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 105, (2000) 2 TAC 371, (2000) 2 ACJ 1179, (2000) 2 RECCIVR 355, (2000) 124 PUN LR 477
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
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 OA-II/85/1999,OA-II/86/1999, OA-II/87/1999 and OA-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 Sections 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. Section 125 of the Act reads as under :--
125. Application for compensation. -- (1) An application for compensation under Section 124 (or Section 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."
In furtherance of his arguments that the respondent cannot be considered as a dependent, he has read over to me Section 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".
6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the case of the respondent does not fall under Clause (i) of Sub-section (b) of Section 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 Section 124 of the Act. It reads as under :--
"124. Extent of liability.-- When in the course of working in a railway, an accident occurs, 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, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident."
8. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, claim could be maintained by the respondent in connection with the deaths of the minor brothers.
9. The question, therefore, to be considered is whether the respondent in this case can be treated as dependent of the deceased. This is the case where the death has resulted because of the accident and as per Section 25 of the Act, the dependents of the deceased could file the claim. Considering the provision of Section 123(b) of the Act, the case of the respondent-claimant cannot come under Clause (i) of the said Section. It can't come under Clause (iii) or (iv) of the said Section A minor brother of the deceased can be a dependent under Clause (ii) of the said Section if he was dependent wholly or partly on the deceased passengers. In this case, it cannot be presumed that the respondent-claimant was dependent upon the deceased passengers because the deceased passengers themselves were minors and it is not shown that they could be treated as dependents.
10. So far as these two appeals are concerned respondent has not shown that she was dependent on the deceased. It is not argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that respondent was actually dependent on the deceased. This point also does not appear to have been argued before the Tribunal. Therefore, it will not be possible to hold the respondent to be dependent on the deceased as in the case of other categories mentioned in Section 123(b) of the Act, reproduced above, and these appeals pertain to the death of Nitin aged 9 years and Lokesh aged 5 years, who were the brothers of the respondent and unless it shown that the respondent was actually dependent on the deceased, it will not be proper or legal to draw presumption of dependent. As mentioned above, the word "dependent" has been defined in Section 123(b) of the Act and if actual dependency is not shown, the respondent cannot be covered under the definition of "dependent".
11. In view of the above reasons, the respondent cannot be held to be entitled to compensation as prayed for. The awards of the tribunal, therefore, deserve to be set aside.
12. As a result, these appeals are allowed. The awards of the Tribunal in favour of the respondent in these two cases are set aside.