RINKU PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dtd. 27/8/2021 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.

(2.) 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 20/7/2008. 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 Sec. 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.

(3.) 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 Sec. 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, thus, argues that the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.