Judgement There was a bomb blast on 24th of August, 1998 at the Guwahati Railway Station in which apart from some others one Sri Gopal Das died. The parents of Sri Gopal Das, that is Sri Prafulla Ch. Das (father) and Smt. Jai Radhika (mother) filed a petition for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gauhati claiming initially a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Later on the wife of the deceased Smt. Saraswati Das for herself and on behalf of her minor son Rahul Das filed another claim petition claiming compensation on account of the death of Sri Gopal Das. Later on the petition filed by the wife of the deceased was however, withdrawn and they were impleaded as parties in the former petition filed by the father and mother of the deceased. It may further be observed herein that by way of amendment the compensation which was initially claimed as Rs. 2,00,000/- was allowed to be enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Tribunal by the judgment and order dated 7-8-2001 awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 50,000/- each to father, mother, wife and the child of the deceased. 2. This appeal has been filed by the wife and the child of the deceased. The Railways, the father and mother of the deceased are the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989, in presence of the wife and the child of the deceased, the parents of the deceased cannot claim any compensation. He referred to the definition of dependant in Section 123 (b) of the Act which is in the following terms:- 123. Definition - In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (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 parental grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger. 4. 4. From the aforesaid definition, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that Clause (i) is to the exclusion of the other clauses. In other words, in the presence of the dependants mentioned in Clause (i) above, the dependants in Clause (ii) cannot file any claim petition. He further went on to argue that Clause (ii) will come into play in the absence of the dependant in Clause (i) and similarly the dependants in Clause (iii) can file petition only in the absence of dependant in Clauses (i) and (ii) and so on. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the reading of the definition of dependant by the learned counsel for the appellant is not correct. All the clauses of Section 123 (b) can stand simultaneously and not in exclusion of each other. Clause (i) mentions those dependants who need not prove that they were dependant upon the deceased, where as Clause (ii) says that such dependants must show that they were wholly or partially dependant upon the deceased. In other words, if the wife, the child and the parents file a claim petition, the wife and the child need not prove that they were dependant upon the deceased as it is assumed that they were dependant upon the deceased. However, so far as the parents are concerned, they are to show that they were dependant upon the deceased. 6. Reference may be also made to provisions of Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989. The section is as under :- 125. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation under Section 124 (or Section 124A) 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 dependant of the deceased or where such a dependant is a minor, by his guardian. (2) Every application by a dependant for compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every other dependant." 7. Section 125 (d) provides that where death has resulted, any dependant can file an application. (2) Every application by a dependant for compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every other dependant." 7. Section 125 (d) provides that where death has resulted, any dependant can file an application. Sub-section (2) of Section 125 provides that an application for compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every other dependant. This would go to show that the petition can be filed simultaneously by all the dependants mentioned in sub-clause (b) of Section 123 and even if it is filed by any one of them it will accrue for the benefit of other dependants whosoever may exist. If we were to agree with the learned counsel, we would be doing violence to the language employed in Sections 123 (b) and 125 (2) of the Railways Act. Take for instance, the deceased has left behind a wife and a child and the parents as in the present case. Suppose as a matter of fact it is proved that the parents were dependant upon the deceased, could the Legislature intend that in the presence of the wife and the child, the parents would not get anything as compensation despite the fact they were dependant upon the deceased son. On one side the parents would lose their son and on the other side they cannot get the compensation, they would suffer the most on both sides. This cannot be the intention of the Legislature. Consequently, the submissions of the learned counsel is hereby rejected. 8. As a matter of fact it may be noticed that in the present case the Tribunal on the basis of evidence gave a finding that the parents were dependant upon the deceased. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits under the Railways Accident Rules, 1990, prior to the amendment on 1st of November, 1997, the Tribunal was to award Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation in respect of one persons death. However, by the amendment on 1st of November, 1997 the said amount has been enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/-. According to the appellant the Tribunal was not correct in awarding only Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to all the claimants. In fact, as per the amendment, the compensation should have been Rs. 4,00,000/-. 2,00,000/- as compensation in respect of one persons death. However, by the amendment on 1st of November, 1997 the said amount has been enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/-. According to the appellant the Tribunal was not correct in awarding only Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to all the claimants. In fact, as per the amendment, the compensation should have been Rs. 4,00,000/-. It has further been brought to our notice that in case of some other claims which had arisen out of the death in the same accident, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation per persons death. Reference has been made to Application No. 1 of 99, Smt. Kanta Devi v. The Railways in which award was given on 8th of February, 2001. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that perhaps the Legislature left no discretion with the Tribunal in case of death of a passenger. The claimant or the claimants have to get Rs. 4,00,000/- in all irrespective of the earning capacity of the deceased and the loss suffered by them. However, in case of the claimant under different category, the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- may be distributed depending upon the circumstances of each case. In the present case, perhaps the amendment was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal that compensation in case of death of a person has been enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/-. 11. Consequently, this appeal is allowed to the extent that the compensation payable by the Railway to the appellant and the private respondents (wife, the child, the father and the mother) would be Rs. 4,00,000/-. 12. However, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if Rs. 75,000/- each is awarded to the father and the mother of the deceased and Rs. 1,25,000/- each to the wife and the child of the deceased. The respondent Railways is directed to pay the compensation as above after adjusting the amount that may have been already paid to the claimant. It may be clarified here that the aforesaid payment be made by the Railway to the claimant within 90 days failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of the judgment of the Tribunal (7-8-2001) till its realisation. Order accordingly.