Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the order dated 18th July 2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal at Mumbai. The appellants, Kiran Damodar Paygode and Santosh Damodar Paygode, are the sons of the deceased Damodar Ganpat Paygode, who died due to an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers. The deceased's mother Lakshmibai and wife Indubai were also dependents. The Tribunal denied compensation to the mother and wife on the ground that they were not wholly dependent on the deceased. The High Court held that the term 'dependent' under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 includes any person who was wholly or partly dependent on the earnings of the deceased. The court also held that the subsequent death of the mother during the pendency of the claim does not extinguish the right of other dependents. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for determination of compensation.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Dependency - Section 123(b) - Mother and wife of deceased passenger who died from accidental fall from train are 'dependents' within meaning of Section 123(b) of Railways Act, 1989 - Tribunal erred in holding that mother and wife were not dependents because they were not wholly dependent on deceased - Held that the term 'dependent' includes any person who was wholly or partly dependent on the earnings of the deceased, and the mother and wife were such dependents (Paras 1-10).
B) Railways Act - Compensation - Untimely death of a dependent - Section 124A - The subsequent death of a dependent (mother) during pendency of claim does not extinguish the right of other dependents to claim compensation - Held that the right to compensation vests in the dependents at the time of death of the passenger, and the death of one dependent does not affect the claim of others (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the mother and wife of the deceased are 'dependents' under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in denying compensation to them.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Order of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 18th July 2014 set aside. Matter remanded to Tribunal for determination of compensation in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Dependency under Section 123(b) of Railways Act
- 1989
- Untimely death of a dependent does not disentitle other dependents
- Burden of proof on Railways to show negligence
- Strict liability for accidental falls from trains
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (06) 64
First Appeal No. 671 of 2015 in Misc. Application No. 09 of 2014 in Original Application No. 1222 of 2006
Mr. Mohan Rao for the appellant, Mr. T.J. Pandian a/w. Mr. Dheer Sampat for the respondent
Kiran Damodar Paygode and Santosh Damodar Paygode
Union of India, represented by the General Manager
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order of Railway Claims Tribunal denying compensation to mother and wife of deceased passenger.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought compensation for the death of Damodar Ganpat Paygode due to accidental fall from train.
Filing Reason
The Railway Claims Tribunal denied compensation to the mother and wife of the deceased on the ground that they were not wholly dependent on the deceased.
Previous Decisions
The Railway Claims Tribunal at Mumbai passed order dated 18th July 2014 denying compensation to the mother and wife.
Issues
Whether the mother and wife of the deceased are 'dependents' under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989?
Whether the subsequent death of a dependent during pendency of claim extinguishes the right of other dependents?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that mother and wife were dependents within meaning of Section 123(b) as they were partly dependent on deceased's earnings.
Respondent argued that mother and wife were not wholly dependent and thus not entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
The term 'dependent' under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 includes any person who was wholly or partly dependent on the earnings of the deceased. The subsequent death of a dependent does not extinguish the right of other dependents to claim compensation.
Judgment Excerpts
This Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 questions the legality and correctness of order dated 18th July, 2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal at Mumbai.
Damodar Ganpat Paygode died due to accidental falling from the train carrying passengers.
His mother-Lakshmibai, wife-Indubai and two sons-Kiran Paygode and Santosh Paygode (appellants herein), all 'dependents' within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Procedural History
Original Application No. 1222 of 2006 was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal passed order on 18th July 2014 in Misc. Application No. 09 of 2014. Against that order, the appellants filed First Appeal No. 671 of 2015 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
Acts & Sections
- Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987: 23
- Railways Act, 1989: 123(b), 124A
