JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeals filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, arise out of the common order dated 31.07.2001 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal) in claim petition Nos. T.A.-II-6/99 and T.A.-II-8/99, whereby the Tribunal had dismissed both the claim petitions filed by the appellant-claimant and partly allowed the claim petition No. T.A.-II-7/99. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the appellant-claimant happened to be the grand mother of the deceased Kumari Neelam Khubani and Master Lalit Khubani, who were traveling in Train bearing No. 2903 (Golden Temple Mail) on 26.11.1998, alongwith their parents. They all died in the accident, which took place near Khanaa Station of Northern Railway. The appellant had filed three claim petitions one in respect of the death of her son Shri Jaikishan Khubani, and the two petitions in respect of the death of her grand children. The Tribunal by the common judgment and order dated 31.07.2001 partly allowed the claim petition bearing No. TA-II-7/99 filed by the appellant for death of her son Shri Jaikishan Khubani, however dismissed the other two claim petitions filed in respect of the death of grand children of the appellant-claimant on the ground that the appellant was not the dependant of her grand children. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said two claim petitions, the present appeals have been filed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Deepak Goyal for the appellant that the Tribunal had committed an error of law on the face of record in mis-interpretating the provisions contained in the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). According to him, the definition of dependant contained in Section 123(b) should be construed to include grand parent also. Pressing into service, the Section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act, he submitted that as per the interpretation clause given in the said Act, the word "parent" would include the grand-father and grand-mother also, and that Railway Claims Act, being the benevolent legislation for the victims of railway accidents, the interpretation beneficial to the victims should be made by the Courts and Tribunals. He also submitted that the jurisdiction of the civil court being barred in respect of the matters required to be decided by the Railways Tribunal, as per the Section 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Act the appellant could not approach the civil court also seeking compensation, which could not be the purpose of the said Act. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. S.C. Purohit for the respondent submitted that the appellant being not the dependent of the deceased, who were the young grand children, aged about 7 and 4 years, she could not have claimed the compensation under Section 124-A of the said Act. He also submitted that there being no error committed by the Tribunal, the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has dismissed the two claim petitions of the appellant in respect of the death of her grand children, on the ground that she was not the dependent on the deceased grand children, who were hardly about 7 and 4 years, and that the appellant could not be said to be the "dependent" as defined in the definition clause contained in Section 123(b)(iv) of the said Act. The relevant part of the definition of the "dependent" contained in Section 123(b) is reproduced as under:- 123. Definitions.-In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in section 124; (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 grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger." 6. From the bare reading of the said definition it clearly transpires that the paternal grandparent of the deceased passenger would be included in the definition of the dependant, only if he or she was wholly dependant on the deceased passenger. From the bare reading of the said definition it clearly transpires that the paternal grandparent of the deceased passenger would be included in the definition of the dependant, only if he or she was wholly dependant on the deceased passenger. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it clearly transpires that the deceased grand children of the appellant were aged about 7 and 4 years, and therefore it could not be said that the appellant was dependent on her grand children who died in the accident in question. The Tribunal, therefore, while partly allowing the claim petition of the appellant in respect of death of her son, has rightly dismissed the claim petitions in respect of the death of her grand children, vide the impugned order. There being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the present appeals being devoid of merits deserve to be dismissed. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the interpretation clause contained in Fatal Accident Act should be made applicable to the facts of the case, also cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the appellant had filed the claim petitions under Section 124A of the said Act and not under the Fatal Accident Act, and therefore the provisions contained in the said Act only could be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******