Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 36 (AP)

Kopuri Yalamanda v. Union of India Secunderabad

2025-01-03

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2025
JUDGMENT : B.S. BHANUMATHI, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the order, dated 21.04.2016, dismissing OA II (A) No.4 of 2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Heard Sri Venkat Mayur, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. P. Vijaya Kumari, the learned counsel representing the respondent/ Union of India/South Central Railway, Secunderabad. 3. The appellants, the applicants before the Tribunal, filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest from the respondent railways on account of the death of K. Pallavi W/o Venkata Ramana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident occurred on 30.07.2012. The 1 st appellant is the father-in-law and the 2 nd appellant is the mother- in-law of the deceased. 4. According to the appellants, on 29.07.2012, at about 8 PM, the deceased along with her husband, late K. Venkata Ramana, and her mother, Smt. I. Nagamani, accompanied by their son, K. Nagaraju, left their residence by bus to Vijayawada railway station to board train No.12622/Tamilnadu Express to go to Chennai. At about 12.10 am, the deceased, her husband and her mother boarded the train. After departure of the train from Vijayawada railway station, their son, K. Nagaraju returned home. In the morning, while watching television, it was noticed that the train No.12622 Tamilnadu Express caught fire between Nellore and Vedayapalem stations at KMs 175/23-32 and coach No.S11 met with the fire accident. Thereupon, the appellants informed their son, K. Nagaraju, to enquire about the status of their son, daughter-in-law and her mother who were travelling in S11 coach. K. Nagaraju, along with other relatives, contacted the railway officers. On the DRM, Vijayawada arranging transport facility, they proceeded to Nellore where the dead bodies of K. Venkataramana and his wife, K. Pallavi, were identified by him. The railway authorities handed over the dead bodies to K. Nagaraju. 5. The respondent/railways filed written statement before the Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim application and admitting to the extent that the name of the deceased (K.Pallavi) is among those found died in the accident as per the list prepared by the Chief Medical Director, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as ex gratia. 6. 6. On the strength of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident? 3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief? 7. During the trial, the applicant No.1, Kopuri Yalamanda was examined as AW1 and exhibits A1 and A2 were marked on behalf of the appellants. Exhibit A1 is the death certificate and exhibit A2 is the Family Member Certificate. On behalf of the respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 8. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal dismissed the application observing that the appellants who are father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased are not be treated as ‘dependants’ or ‘legal heirs’ of the deceased. 9. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred. 10. The main contention of the appellants is that a liberal interpretation shall be given to the definition of ‘dependant’ under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 and thereby the claimants who are the in-laws of the deceased shall be provided compensation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dhyan Singh and another Vs. Union of India and others, [2008 SCC online P&H 1307], wherein a minor brother of the deceased was held to be a dependant. The relevant observation of the High Court at para 12 of the cited decision is as follows: “12. The matter can be examined from another angle as well. Section 123(b) of the Railways Act define "dependent" to include minor brother if dependent partly or wholly on the deceased passenger. The word dependency is not restricted to economic dependence but dependence of love, affection, care and protection of the deceased passenger as well. The word "dependent" in Clause (ii) or Section 123(b) of the Railways Act is not to be given restrictive meaning but contextual meaning keeping in view the objective of the statute so as to compensate unfortunate death of a passenger in railway accident. Such provision cannot be interpreted so as to benefit the (sic) which in the present case would be the Railways. Such provision cannot be interpreted so as to benefit the (sic) which in the present case would be the Railways. Sub-section (ii) of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act deals with dependency wholly or in part, therefore, the dependence of care and protection, love and affection by the deceased on their minor brother would be dependence within the meaning of the Act. It may be noticed that the parental grand parents can be said to be dependents only if they are wholly dependent on the deceased passenger. Such dependency is in contravention to even par dependency of a minor brother under Clause (ii) of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act.” 11. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the decision and excluded the claimants and the order impugned does not require interference. 12. Section 123(b) of the Railways Act reads as follows: 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; 13. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the decision in Dhyan Singh and another (1 supra), dealt with a case of the minor brother who is mentioned in section 123(b)(ii) as a dependant, whereas, in the present case, the claimants are in-laws who are not covered by any of the clauses under section 123(b). The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the above decision, it was observed that the word dependency is not restricted to economic dependence, but dependence of love, affection, care and protection of the deceased passenger. This interpretation is to be understood to consider whether the referred category of relatives stated in the definition are wholly or partly dependant on the deceased, but not to identify persons who are dependants on the deceased. Therefore, the same analogy cannot be adopted. This interpretation is to be understood to consider whether the referred category of relatives stated in the definition are wholly or partly dependant on the deceased, but not to identify persons who are dependants on the deceased. Therefore, the same analogy cannot be adopted. Even by liberal interpretation of social welfare legislation, a Court cannot introduce what is not expressly or by necessary implication stated in the statute, when it is not the intention of the legislature or the object of the legislation. As such, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.