JUDGMENT : (Pankaj Bhatia, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 27.08.2021 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for pursuing the claim petitions filed by the father of the petitioner on account of death of his wife and daughter in an alleged train accident was rejected. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the father of the petitioner had filed two claim applications bearing Nos.OA/II/U/482 of 2012 & OA/II/U/483 of 2012 claiming compensation on account of death of the daughter of the original claimant as well as his wife, who allegedly died in a train accident while travelling in Train No.1068-A on 20.07.2008. It appears from record that after filing of the claim applications, various dates were fixed for adducing evidence, however, as the father of the petitioner went missing and was not traceable for the last 5 -6 years, an application was moved by the petitioner permitting him to pursue the claim for and on behalf of all the dependents in terms of mandate of Section 125(2) of the Railways Act. The said application was dismissed placing reliance on Rule 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989, which prohibits adjournment on more than three occasions. The other reason recorded in the order is that the fact that the father of the petitioner is missing for the last 5 -6 years has not been substantiated by any cogent evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that an application with regard to missing of the father of the petitioner was made and that cannot be cast away as being no evidence. He next submits that in terms of mandate of Section 125(2) of the Railways Act, all the claims made for compensation are for the benefit of every other dependent and the petitioner being the brother and son of the persons, who had died for which the claim petitions have been filed, has every right irrespective of whether father of the petitioner was present or not. He further argues that name of the petitioner was mentioned in the original application filed by the father of the petitioner, however, as he was minor at that time, he did not join as claimant in the claim petitions. He further argues that name of the petitioner was mentioned in the original application filed by the father of the petitioner, however, as he was minor at that time, he did not join as claimant in the claim petitions. He, thus, argues that the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand raises a preliminary objection that an appeal lies against the order impugned in terms of Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the present petition would not be maintainable. He further argues that the evidence to establish that the father of the petitioner is no more is only a complaint to the police authorities and there being no FIR, the piece of evidence is not worthy of any reliance. 6. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides. 7. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act was enacted for establishment of Railway Claim Tribunals for determining the claims against the railway administration for loss caused on account of the act of the railways or for grant of compensation on account of death or injury to the passengers. The whole Act was enacted to provide for a speedy remedy. The procedure prescribed in the Act is a summery procedure to be adopted by the Tribunals for adjudication of the disputes. 8. On an overall reading of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act it is clear that the Act intends to serve a socio-economic benefit and thus, has to be interpreted liberally. The procedure to be followed by the claims tribunal is specified under Section 18 of the Act and to make the disposal expeditious, Rule 28 has been enacted, which prohibits grant of more than three adjournments, thus, on a plain reading, the Act intends to provide for speedy disposal of cases relating to compensation. 9. Section 125 of the Railways Act, which is quoted hereinbelow, specifically refers a provision to the effect that every application by a dependent for compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every other dependent: 125. 9. Section 125 of the Railways Act, which is quoted hereinbelow, specifically refers a provision to the effect that every application by a dependent for compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every other dependent: 125. Application for compensation.—(1) An application for compensation under section 124 or Section 124-A 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. 10. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the mandate of Section 125 of the Railways Act and the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, it is clear that the claim for compensation can be filed by either one or other of the dependants, who claim compensation on account of death or injury. 11. In the present case as the father of the petitioner is missing for the last 5 -6 years, the petitioner was well within his rights to seek impleadment as an applicant/claimant to pursue the claim. The Tribunal has clearly erred in rejecting the said application by placing reliance on Rule 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, which merely prohibits grant of more than three adjournments. 12. It is well established that the benefits flowing out of a socioeconomic legislation cannot be denied by adopting a narrow and pedantic approach as has been done by the Tribunal in the present case. 13. The second foundation as contained in the impugned order that no cogent evidence was led to establish that the father of the petitioner was missing for the last 5 -6 years, merits rejection as the petitioner was within his rights to get himself impleaded as an applicant/claimant. Thus, the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure - 1) cannot be sustained and is set aside. 14. Thus, the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure - 1) cannot be sustained and is set aside. 14. It is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to be impleaded as applicant/claimant in the two Claim Petition Nos.OA/II/U/482 of 2012 & OA/II/U/483 of 2012 and the Tribunal shall endeavour to decide the matter with all expedition, preferably within six months after giving liberty to the petitioner to adduce whatever evidence he may choose so in support of his claim. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.