Laldeo Singh vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

N. Pandey, J.—These appeals arise out of the orders of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Patna Branch in Claim Case Nos. 56, 57 and 58 of 1990, whereby and whereunder the application filed u/s 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, by the Appellant for claims have been rejected on the ground that he was not "dependent" to seek compensation of the deceased persons u/s 2(1)(d) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923.

It appears on 16.4.1990, while 383 up Mokameh-Danapur Passenger, started from Gulzarbagh Railway Station in Paina one of its compartments caught fire resulting in death of several persons including Smt. Malo Devi, Manikah Kumar and Picku Kumar, wife and sons of the Appellant Lal Deo Singh, due to burn injuries. The learned Tribunal has held that Malo Devi and her two sons were bonafide passengers of the ill-fated train and they died due to burn injuries. But the claim for compensation has been rejected merely on the ground that the Appellant was not "dependant" of the deceased persons in terms of Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(a) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act. That apart, it has also been held that Malo Devi was a house wife therefore, wholly dependent on her husband.

The only question arises for consideration is whether in view of the accident which took place on 16.4.1990, resulting in death of Appellant''s wife and sons, he would be entitled to claim compensation in terms of the provisions incorporated under Railways Act, 1989. Admittedly, the death of the wife and sons of the Appellant had taken place on 16.4.1990. The Railway Act, 1989 enacted by the Parliament was published in the Gazette of India (Extra ordinary) dated 5th June, 1989. As per Section 125(1)(d), an application for compensation u/s 124 in case of death due to railway accident can be made by any "dependant" of the deceased or where such a dependant is a minor, by his guardian. Sub-Section (2) envisages that every application by a dependant for compensation under this section shall be made for the benefit of every other dependant.

It would be useful to notice that Section 82-C of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 was a similar provision as it is available u/s 125 of the new Act. But the word "dependant" was not separately defined as has now been done u/s 123 of the 1989 Acts, whereas in terms of second Explanation of Section 2(c) of the 1890 Act, the word "dependant" has the meaning assigned to it in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Workmen''s Compansation Act, 1923. But while inserting Section 123 under the 1989 Act, the Parliament has already defined the word "dependant" to give effect for the purpose of Sections 124, 125 and 126 of this Act. Sub-section (b) of Section 123, which defines �dependant� is reproduced hereunder:

(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 predeceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger.

(iii) a minor child of a predeceased daughter if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.

(iv) the paternal grand parent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.

A bare reference to the aforesaid provisions indicate that in case the deceased passenger was a minor his parents are dependants entitled to lodge claims for compensation u/s 125(1)(d) of the 1989 Act.

Unfortunately, all these questions have not been considered by the learned Claims Tribunal. Mr. Ojha, learned Advocate, who has appeared for the Railways on my request could not take a stand that the questions raised above were considered by the Tribunal. He, however, referred to a decision in the case of G.N. Bhandari, Allahabad v. The Railway Administration, New Delhi (AIR 1983 All 150) to show that no claim can be lodged u/s 82-C of the Railway Act, 1890 by a father on the death of his minor son or daughter in a train accident, where there was no material on record to show that claimant was dependant on the earning of the deceased son. In view of the definition of the term "dependant" in Workmen''s Compensation Act which was adopted under the Railway Act, a father would not be entitled to get compensation.

In my view, the aforesaid judgment may not be applicable to the facts of the present case since admittedly the accident in question had taken place on 16.4.1990 at a time when the Act of 1989 was already introduced. Any consideration regarding grant of claim or whether the claimant was dependant as required u/s 125(1)(d) of the Railway Act, has to be examined with reference to the provisions of Section 123(b) of the said Act.

For the reasons stated above, I have no other option but to quash the impugned orders in these appeals and remit back the case to the Claims Tribunal for a fresh consideration for payment of compensation in terms of the findings recorded above. Since the claim of the Appellant is pending for nearly six years, it would be desirable that final orders be passed positively within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.

In the result, these appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.