ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of a common order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in two connected appeals, one filed by the paternal grandmother of the appellant herein and the other filed by the appellant himself. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. In a railway accident that happened on 21.07.2011, a passenger by name Shri Ishwar died. His wife Smt. Roji suffered injuries and died subsequently at the hospital on 10.08.2011. In other words, it was a case of death of a couple in a Rail accident. 5. Smt. Roshni the mother of the deceased Ishwar and Master Gaurav, the minor son of the couple filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, Punjab under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. By an order dated 14.07.2014, the Tribunal rejected that claim on the ground inter alia that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the claim was not covered by Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act,1989. 6. Two First Appeals were filed, one by the appellant herein and the other by his grandmother, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court reversed the findings of the Tribunal with regard to both the questions namely, (i) whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger; and (ii) whether there was an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. After doing so, the High Court allowed the appeal of the grandmother of the appellant and directed compensation in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid together with interest @ 7.5% per annum to the grandmother. But in so far as the appellant is concerned, the High Court held that there was no evidence to show that the appellant was the child of the deceased couple. Though a ration card was produced, the High Court held that in the ration card the number of members of the family of Shri Ishwar was stated only to be two and that therefore the photograph of a child contained in the ration card was of no relevance. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant, who was then a minor was dismissed by the High Court. It is against the said portion of the common order dismissing his appeal, that the appellant has come up with the above appeal. 7. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant, who was then a minor was dismissed by the High Court. It is against the said portion of the common order dismissing his appeal, that the appellant has come up with the above appeal. 7. The only reason stated by the High Court for rejecting the claim of the appellant can be reproduced in the very language of the High Court as follows: '...With regard to death of Smt. Roji, application for compensation has been filed only by Master Gaurav. To prove that Master Gaurav is the son of Ishwar and Smt. Roji, a copy of ration card Ex.A11 has been produced. The ration card has a photograph purported to be of Ishwar and Smt. Roji and there is one child in the picture. However, in the ration card, number of members of family of Ishwar are described as two and both are adults. In the details of members of family, there is name of Ishwar and Roji, aged 21 and 18 years respectively. Meaning thereby that the child in the photograph is not a member of family of Ishwar. No evidence has been adduced that Master Gaurav is the son of Ishwar and Roji. No date of birth of Master Gaurav has been stated. In the given scenario, it can safely be held that claimants have failed to adduce sufficient much less cogent evidence to establish that Master Gaurav is the son of Ishwar and Smt. Roji and entitle to get compensation for death of his parents.' 8. But we do not approve of the above reasonings contained in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appellant was actually represented by his grandmother, both before the Tribunal and before the High Court. The fact that Smt. Roshni, who represented the appellant, is the mother of Shri Ishwar, one of the deceased, is not in dispute. The fact that Smt. Roji was the daughter-in-law of Smt. Roshni is also not disputed. The Railways have not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the High Court in the appeal filed by the grandmother. 9. The fact that a wrong entry had been made in the ration card, indicating the number of family members to be two, despite the photograph containing the couple carrying a child, is no ground to hold that the relationship was not established. 10. 9. The fact that a wrong entry had been made in the ration card, indicating the number of family members to be two, despite the photograph containing the couple carrying a child, is no ground to hold that the relationship was not established. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court insofar as it relates to the appeal of the appellant is concerned, is set aside. The original claim filed by the appellant, relating to the death of his mother Smt. Roji, shall stand allowed, on equal terms as in the other case. There shall be no order as to costs.