HATIMA EBRAHIM Vs. ISABAI ABDUL KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this appeal is whether the Claims Commissioner under the Railways Act 1890 has power to apportion compensation in respect of loss occasioned by the death of a passenger amongst the dependents of the deceased when the application for compensation is made only by one of the dependents. The deceased Ebrahim Abdul Karim was serving as a Sepoy in Military Brass Band and whilst he was travelling by 35 Up Kirti Express on 21st May 1958 he met with his death as a result of derailment which occurred at a place called Chamaraj. Bai Zubeda who was the widow of the deceased thereupon made an application to the Claims Commissioner appointed under section 82-B of the Railways Act for compensation for loss occasioned by the death of the deceased. The amount of compensation which she claimed from the railway administration was Rs. 30 0 and in support of the said claim she set out in the application that the deceased was in good health and was only thirty years old and was earning a salary of Rs. 140/per month. She also mentioned in the application that the deceased had left surviving him besides herself two minor daughters and one minor son as also aged parents and the deceased was maintaining them. The claim for compensation made by her in the application was inquired into by the Claims Commissioner and the Claims Commissioner came to the conclusion that the railway administration was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5 200 as and by way of compensation for loss occasioned by the death of the deceased. The Claims Commissioner however instead of directing the railway administration to pay the sum of Rs. 5 200 to her proceeded to consider the question of apportionment of the said amount amongst the dependents of the deceased. The Claims Commissioner came to the conclusion that besides the widow the two minor daughters and one minor son the two aged parents of the deceased were also dependents of the deceased and he accordingly by an order dated 19th November 1958 apportioned the sum of Rs. 5 200 which he held to be the amount of compensation payable by the railway administration amongst the widow two minor daughters one minor son and two aged parents in the following manner :-- (1) The widow Rs. 851-00 (2) The two minor daughters and one Rs. 883-00 each minor son (3) The two aged parents Rs. 850-00 each and directed the railway administration to make payment of the amount of compensation accordingly. The widow the two minor daughters and the minor son thereupon preferred an appeal in this Court. In the appeal the two aged parents of the deceased were made respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the Union of India was joined as respondent No. 3. The appeal was directed only against the apportionment of the amount of compensation amongst the dependents of the deceased. During the pendency of the appeal the widow died and since the two minor daughters and the minor son were the only heirs and legal representatives of the widow they continued the appeal as appellants. The aged father of the deceased who was respondent No. 1 also died pending the appeal and his heirs and legal representatives were therefore brought on record in his place and stead.

(2.) The appeal as pointed out above was directed only against the apportionment of the amount of compensation amongst the dependents of the deceased and the only contest therefore was between the appellants on the one hand and respondents Nos. 1(1) to 1(6) and 2 on the other. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the application for compensation having been made by the widow who was admittedly a dependent of the deceased and no application for compensation having been made by any other dependents of the deceased the Claims Commissioner had no jurisdiction to apportion the amount of compensation amongst the dependents of the deceased and that the order of the Claims Commissioner in so far as it apportioned the amount of compensation amongst the dependents of the deceased was beyond his jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside. This contention was disputed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1(1) to 1(1) and 2 and the argument urged on their behalf was that the application for compensation made by the widow was an application for the benefit of all the dependents of the deceased and the Claims Commissioner was therefore entitled to apportion the amount of compensation amongst the dependents of the deceased. These rival contentions raised a question of construction of the relevant provisions of the Railways Act relating to compensation in respect of loss occasioned as a result of accident to trains carrying passengers. These provisions are to be found in sections 82-A to 82-H of the Railways Act and we shall briefly examine these provisions for the purpose of deciding the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Claims Commissioner under these provi sions.

(3.) Sub-section (1) of section 82-A declares the liability of the railway administration to pay compensation for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of an accident to a train carrying passengers and for personal injury and loss destruction or deterioration of animals or goods owned by the passenger and accompanying the passenger in his compartment or on the train sustained as a result of such accident. There is a limit imposed by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 82A on the liability of the railway administration and that limit is Rs. 20 0 in respect of any one person. The claim for compensation which may be made against the railway administration under sec. 82-A is to be investigated by a Claims Commissioner to be appointed by the Central Government under section 82-B. Sub-section (1) of section 82-C then provides as to who can make an application for compensation under section 82-A and one of the persons who can make such an application is in the case of death resulting from accident any dependent of the deceased. Sub-sec. (2) of section 82-C enacts that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within three months of the occurrence of the accident but the Claims Commissioner may on good cause shown allow any application to be made at any time within one year of such occurrence. Section 82D lays down the procedure and powers of the Claims Commissioner in regard to the application for compensation which may be made before him. Section 82-E enables the Claims Commissioner to make interim orders for compensation. Sub-section (1) of section 82-F constitutes the Claims Commissioner the exclusive tribunal for the determination of any question as to the liability of the railway administration to pay compensation under section 82-A or as to the amount thereof or as to the person to whom such compensation is payable. Sub-section (2) of section 82-P gives a right of appeal to the High Court to any person aggrieved by the decision of the Claims Commissioner refusing to grant compensation or as to the amount of compensation granted to him. There is a period of limitation provided for such appeal by sub-sec. (3) of section 82-F but we are not concerned with it as the present appeal is admittedly in time. Then comes section 82-G which contains a provision of some importance so far as the question before us is concerned. Sub-sections (1) (2) and (3) of that section are not very material for when there is only one application for compensation in respect of a passenger there is no difficulty. When the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant is deposited by the railway administration the Claims Commissioner is required to pay it to the applicant with the least possible delay. But there may be cases where there are more applications than one for compensation in respect of a single passenger. What is to happen in such a case ? Sub-section (4) of section 82-d provides that where such is the case the amount of compensation may be apportioned amongst the applicants in such manner as the Claims Commissioner thinks fit or may be allotted to the applicant who in the opinion of the Claims Commissioner is best entitled thereto subject to such applicant giving a bond or other sufficient security. Then follow sections 82-H and 82-1 which are not material for the purpose of the present appeal. Section 82-J which is the last section in this group of sections confers power on the Central Government to make rules and in exercise of this power the Central Government has made certain rules.