Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1048 (AP)

UNION OF INDIA v. BHANOTU RAJI

2006-08-31

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2006
( 1 ) THE 1st respondent is the wife of late Bhanotu Lakpati and respondents 2 to 5 are said to be their children. They filed OAA No. 279 of 2001, before the Secunderabad Bench of Railway claims Tribunal, alleging that Lakpati, along with another person, by name G. Ramulu and others, was working as labourer at vijayawada, and that on 21-7-2001, he travelled by a train to his native place, mahaboobabad. It was stated that he has fallen from the train at the A-cabin of mahaboobabad Railway Station, sustained injuries and died in the hospital, while undergoing treatment. The ticket was said to have been lost in the untoward incident. They claimed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant opposed the application, disputing the contents of the claim petition. It was alleged that Train no. 170, in which the deceased was said to have travelled was not in operation or existence on 21-7-2001. It was also pleaded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal framed three issues, viz; (1) Whether the respondents are dependants of the deceased ? (2) Whether the deceased was not bona fide passenger of Train No. 170, domakal-Kazipet Passenger ? (3) Whether the deceased sustained injuries, as a result of the untoward incident ? ( 2 ) ISSUES 2 and 3 were answered in favour of the respondents, and on Issue no. 1, the Tribunal took the view that the 1st respondent did not produce any document to show that respondents 2 to 5 are her children through the deceased, and that she should file separate certificate issued by the competent Authority for this purpose. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was awarded as compensation. The same is challenged in this CMA. ( 3 ) SRI B. H. R. Choudary, learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the Tribunal was not satisfied that the respondents 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased, there was no basis for awarding the compensation. He further contends that the other legal representatives, viz. , parents of the deceased, were not impleaded. He contends that there was any amount of discrepancy, as to the description of the train, or as to the deceased being bona fide passenger, and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for the Tribunal, in awarding the compensation. He further contends that the other legal representatives, viz. , parents of the deceased, were not impleaded. He contends that there was any amount of discrepancy, as to the description of the train, or as to the deceased being bona fide passenger, and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for the Tribunal, in awarding the compensation. ( 4 ) SRI Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there was no dispute that the 1st respondent was the wife of the deceased and the vague doubt and uncertainty expressed by the Tribunal, as to the parentage of respondents 2 to 5, was almost inconsequential. Learned counsel further submits that the word dependant is defined under Section 123 (b)of the Railways Act, for short "the Act", and that the respondents answer the said description. As regards the discrepancy about the number of the train, learned Counsel submits that the deposition of the witness examined on behalf of the Railways itself is sufficient, to clarify the same. ( 5 ) TWO grounds are urged on behalf of the appellant, viz. , that there was any amount of uncertainty, as to the number and description of the train in which the deceased is said to have travelled; and as to the entitlement of the respondents to claim or to receive the compensation. ( 6 ) SO far as the first ground is concerned, it is true that there is some uncertainty, as to the number of train in which the deceased is said to have travelled. This uncertainty is on account of the fact that at the relevant point of time, just few days before the accident, Train No. 376 used to operate between Vijayawada and kazipet, but it was rescheduled in such a way that one train was to run between vijayawada and Dornakal, and a separate train with No. 170 was to run between dornakal and Kazipet. The respondents specifically pleaded that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train between dornakal and Kazipet and that he fell from the train at the A-cabin of Mahaboobabad station. RW-1, a Switchman of A-cabin of mahabubabad Station clearly deposed that the deceased has fallen from the said train. Even according to him, it was train no. 376. The respondents specifically pleaded that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train between dornakal and Kazipet and that he fell from the train at the A-cabin of Mahaboobabad station. RW-1, a Switchman of A-cabin of mahabubabad Station clearly deposed that the deceased has fallen from the said train. Even according to him, it was train no. 376. This mistake was obviously on account of the fact that the numbers of the train were changed, just few days before the accident. Once it is evident that an employee of the Railways deposed as RW-1, stating that he has noticed a person having fallen from the train, and it was none other than the deceased, all other minor discrepancies virtually become irrelevant. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the first ground urged on behalf of the appellant. ( 7 ) SO far as the second ground is concerned, it is evident that the wife and children of the deceased have filed the OP, claiming to be exclusive legal heirs of the deceased. The compensation in a claim under the Railways Act is payable to dependant, as defined under Section 123 (b) of the act. It reads as under :"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 grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger. "from a reading of the same, the dependant of a deceased passenger would include not only the spouses and children, but also the parents, the minor brother or unmarried or widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law, etc. Even paternal grandparents, who are dependant upon the deceased passenger, are brought in the fold of the definition. It was not even stated by the respondents herein that the deceased does not have the parents or grandparents. Further, the tribunal expressed the view that an independent certification is to be made that the respondents 2 to 5 are the children of the 1st respondent through the deceased. It was not even stated by the respondents herein that the deceased does not have the parents or grandparents. Further, the tribunal expressed the view that an independent certification is to be made that the respondents 2 to 5 are the children of the 1st respondent through the deceased. When so much of uncertainty prevailed, the tribunal ought to have required the respondents herein, to clear all the doubts, or insisted that the parents of the deceased must also be made parties. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the order under appeal is set aside, only to the extent of ascertaining the actual dependents of the deceased. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal, for fresh disposal, on that limited question. The respondents shall implead the parents, as well as grand of parents, of the deceased, if they are alive. Only after ensuring that all the persons, who come within the definition of dependant, under Section 123 (b) of the act, are impleaded and served with notices, the Tribunal shall decide the question, and thereafter, apportion the compensation among them. ( 9 ) IN exercise of its power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the constitution of India, this Court directs that in all the claim petitions before it, the Tribunal shall ensure that the dependants of the deceased, as defined under Section 123 (b)of the Act, are impleaded as parties, and not to proceed with the matters, where such dependants are omitted. There shall be no order as to costs.