Kerala High Court
The General Manager vs Sri. Suresh M.K on 26 August, 2008
Author: Koshy
Bench: J.B.Koshy, Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 52 of 2008()
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY,
... Petitioner
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
Vs
1. SRI. SURESH M.K., S/O.LATE M.K.KURUVILA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS
For Respondent :SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :26/08/2008
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------
M.F.A.NO: 52 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th August, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Koshy, J.
One Mr. M.K.Shaji along with his wife and two minor children were travelling in Train No: 2903, Golden Temple Express. A fire broke out in the compartment in which they were travelling and his wife Betty and two children died. Shaji was a cancer patient. In fact he was travelling with regard to his treatment. The following facts are not disputed.
2. Betty was a bonafide passenger who died in the accident. Her dependents are entitled to compensation as provided under the Railways Act, 1989. Under Section 124 of the Act, as soon as the stated injuries are sustained by the bonafide passenger, his dependants are entitled to compensation. The compensation falls due on the date of accident itself. Here also there is no dispute to be adjudicated. Whatever be the income and age compensation is fixed asper the rules. It is Rs.4 lakhs as per the amended rules. Whether there is negligence on the part of the railway or not, like Section 163A this amount is payable. This amount could have been claimed by the husband who was alive. It is not a mere right to sue but right to receive compensation which crystalized on the husband. But the husband of Betty Shri. Shaji subsequently died while undergoing treatment in the Kochi Military Hospital. Therefore, on his behalf his brother who got his rights bequeathed by Shaji made an MFA 52/2008 2 application for compensation. Tribunal granted the same. The objection raised by the appellant-Railway is that appellant is not a dependent.
3. Under Section 125 the compensation amount can be claimed by the injured person or his agent or by dependant of the deceased. Dependant is defined under Section 123 (b) of the Liability of Railway Administration for Death and Injury to Passengers due to Accidents as follows:-
(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 grand parent wholly dependent on the deceased passenger."
3. It is contended that elder brother of the husband of the deceased is not dependant and therefore he cannot maintain an application. But we note that he claimed only as legal representative of the husband of the deceased. Husband is a 'dependant'. The moment the accident occurred the amount fell due. There is nothing to be adjudicated in that matter. Railway, being a public sector undertaking ought to have disbursed the amount as per the Act immediately on the death of Betty, to the husband, the only surviving dependant, without making an application by him during his life time. He has bequeathed MFA 52/2008 3 his right including the right to receive this amount which already fell due, to the brother and the brother filed the application. He stepped into the shoes of the husband of Betty. So, the above agent is to be considered as it is justified by the husband of the deceased. No doubt husband is a dependant as provided under Section 123 (b). It is also pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that liability of the railway due to the death of the passenger is also insured under the Railway Passenger Insurance Scheme 1994 and for the death of passengers insurance company will pay amount to the railway and railway is not at all aggrieved. Apart from the above, we note that here the claim is filed on behalf of the husband and that amount was awarded For the above reasons we are not interfering with the award. Appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH Judge jj K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
M.F.A.NO:
-----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT Dated: