JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J.—Heard Sri Lalji Sinha learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Balwant Singh learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act has been preferred by the Union of India challenging the award of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the dependents of the deceased Smt. Dropadi Devi. 3. Sri Sinha has raised mainly the following two points for assailing the award : (1) Smt. Dropadi Devi (deceased) was a house wife and was having no earning and, therefore, the claimants cannot be said to be the dependants of the deceased so as to entitle them to any compensation under the Railways Act; and (2) There was no evidence on record to hold that the death occurred because of the accidental slip from the train and that it was not a case of suicide. 4. In regard to the first plea reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on two Division Bench judgments, namely, G.N. Bhandari Allahabad v. Railway Administration, New Delhi, AIR 1983 All 150 and Charubala Saha and others v. Eastern Railway Administration and another, AIR 1988 Cal. 327 . He has also drawn attention of the Court to the provisions of Sections 123, 124 and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989. The aforementioned two judgments lay down the same principle with respect to the definition of ‘dependant’ under the Indian Railways Act of 1890 and also to the provisions of Sections 82-A and 82-C Act of 1890. The Court on consideration that there was no definition of the term ‘dependent’ given in the Act of 1890 and Section 82-C(2), which lays down that an application for compensation under Section 82-A arising out of an accident can be made by persons mentioned in clauses (a) to (d). Clause (d) provides for filing of an application by any dependent of the deceased. The expression “dependent” assigned in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The relevant portion of Section 2(d) is reproduced below : “Dependent” means any relative of a deceased workman, namely— (i) .............. (ii) ........... (iii) for wholly or in part dependent on the earning of the workman at the time of his death; (a) ........... (b) a parent other than a widowed mother. 5. The relevant portion of Section 2(d) is reproduced below : “Dependent” means any relative of a deceased workman, namely— (i) .............. (ii) ........... (iii) for wholly or in part dependent on the earning of the workman at the time of his death; (a) ........... (b) a parent other than a widowed mother. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid definition of the dependent the Court concluded that in order to be entitled to claim compensation it is necessary that the claimant must have been dependent on the earning of the deceased at the time of his death. The two cases referred to above thus relate to a different enactment where the definition of term ‘dependent’ was not given and therefore considering the provisions of Section 82-C and 82-A and Section 2(d) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 the aforesaid pronouncements were made. 6. The case in hand relates to the Railways Act, 1989 wherein the dependent has been defined under Section 123 (b) and the relevant portion in the present case is sub-clause (i), which says : “123. Definition.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires— (a)........................ (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; 7. Section 124 deals with the extent of a liability and Section 125 says how the application for compensation can be moved. The legal pronouncement made in the Calcutta as well as Allahabad judgment does not interpret the provisions of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 as the matter in those cases related to a period when this Act had not come into force and the matter was governed by the 1890 Act. Seeing the definition of dependant given in Section 123 there cannot be any doubt that the husband or wife or son or daughter, as the case may be, would be the dependant of the deceased. The provisions of 1989 Act nowhere say that dependency should be financial dependency on the deceased and the deceased must have some income which was being used upon the dependents and only then compensation can be awarded. This is also fortified from the fact that a statutory amount has been prescribed for almost every accident resulting in physical injury, loss of luggage or goods and death etc. This is also fortified from the fact that a statutory amount has been prescribed for almost every accident resulting in physical injury, loss of luggage or goods and death etc. A determined sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been given in the Schedule contained under Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. There is no requirement for adducing any evidence about the income of the deceased. In case it stands proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the death had occurred for one or the other reason for which compensation is payable under the Act because of Railway’s conduct or action, the dependant shall be entitled for compensation. Once it is established that the death had occurred in the railway accident and the deceased was a bona fide passenger no further proof is needed about the income of the deceased and the dependants would be entitled to the statutory amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation. 8. This view further finds support from the fact that the prescribed proforma of the claim petition also does not have any column requiring to show the income of the deceased. It has to be borne in mind that award of compensation because of death, injury or loss of goods or luggage is not compensation like the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is statutory compensation for indemnifying the loss of person or property to the dependents of the deceased. Loss does not mean only financial loss. 9. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the first submission. 10. We would also like to put on record that the aforesaid plea that Smt. Dropadi Devi was a house wife and had no income can also not be considered by this Court as the same was not pleaded by the railways before the Tribunal. It is for the first time that this plea is being raised before this Court. 11. So far as the second argument is concerned, we have gone through the record and we find that the Tribunal has given a very cogent finding on the issue that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and had died because of accidental slip on account of over rush in the train and the death has occurred because of this accidental fall. The finding is as under : “.....from the affidavit of Sri R.C. Sharma who deposed that he himself purchased the ticket ex Gorakhpur to Khalilabad on 2.7.1998 and handed over to the deceased who boarded Barauni-Lucknow express train. The post-mortem report No. 419 on record reveals that the same was prepared at 4 p.m. on 2.7.1998 though in the post-mortem report it was indicated that the subject report is about an unknown women aged about 35 years. However the CRP/Gorakhpur’s report dated 22.9.1998 confirms that the dead-body of unknown lady as per post-mortem report number 429/98 was that of Smt. Draupadi Devi and according to the said report she died on account of the injuries sustained due to falling from the train going towards Basti on 2.7.1998. The Police report confirms that the deceased died on account of the accidental fall from the train on 2.7.1998 and that she had a ticket gets confirmed from the deposition of Sri R.C. Sharma. The defence of the respondent that no women was but by 5203 Up on 2.7.1998 at Gorakhpur station merely because report of any such incident is not appearing in their relevant station diary of that date has no merit. Accordingly on the basis of the evidence on record it is also held that the deceased Draupadi Devi was a passenger of train number 5203 Up Barauni-Lucknow Express on falling down from the train gets covered under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and in terms of Section 121-A of the Railways Act, the railway administration is held liable to pay compensation in this case.” 12. We thus find that the award cannot be interfered with on any of the aforesaid grounds. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are perfectly valid. 13. There is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. ————