G N BHANDARI Vs. RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 82-F, Indian Railways Act has been filed against the judgment of the ad hoc Claims Commissioner, Northern Railway, Allahabad, dismissing the claim petition of the appellant filed under Section 82-A of the aforesaid Act. 2. The facts briefly were that Vinod Kumar Bhandari, who was the son of the appellant, was travelling by 14 Dn. Upper India Express on the 31st October, 1974 when the train met with an accident near Manoharganj railway station of the Northern Railway. He died on the spot. His dead body was, thereafter, removed by G. R. P. , from the scene of accident to the mortuary of Swarup Rani Hospital where it was identified on 2-11-1974. The dead body was then handed over to the appellant by a Sub-Inspector after proper identification. The appellant claimed that the deceased was 22 years of age and had graduated in Mechanical Engineering, Roorkee University with first division in the year 1973 and was returning from Delhi after attending an interview. He asserted that as the appellant was dependent of the deceased Vinod Kumar Bhandari, he was entitled to receive Rs. 90,000/- as compensation. The claim was contested by the defendant and the right of the appellant to receive compensation was denied inter alia on the ground that Vinod Kumar Bhandari was not since a bona fide passenger, he was not entitled to compensation. The second was that the appellant, being not "dependent", could not get the compensation in the present proceedings. On these two controversies, issues 1 and 3 were framed by the ad hoc Claims Commissioner. Both of these issues were decided by the Claims Commissioner against the appellant and the claim petition was rejected. Hence, the appeal. 3. The first submission made by Sri R. A. Sharma, counsel for the appellant, was that the Claims Commissioner erred in holding that the deceased Vinod Kumar Bhandari was not a bona fide passenger. He contended that the evidence showed to the contrary. According to his submission, the presumption under S. 114, Evidence Act, was that the deceased had the necessary ticket with him and that he was bona fide passenger. It was submitted that since he was returning from Delhi after interview, he could not possibly travel without ticket. 4. Contending on behalf of the respondent about a bona fide passenger, counsel relied on a decision of the Division Bench reported in Smt. Yashoda v. Union of India, (AIR 1979 All 287 ). This decision lays down that only a "dependent" of a bona fide passenger is entitled to get compensation. As the appeal will fail on the second ground which we will mention presently, we do not wish to give final opinion on this controversy. To us, it appears that the assessment of evidence made by the ad hoc Commissioner that the deceased Vinod Kumar Bhandari was not a bona fide passenger is not satisfactory. 5. The second question raised was that the appellant was not a ''dependent", hence his claim was not maintainable. Section 82 C lays down that an application for compensation under S. 82-A arising out of an accident can be made by persons mentioned in cls. (a) to (d ). Clause (d) provides for filing of an application by any dependent of the deceased. The expression ''dependent" is not defined in the Railways Act. Explanation to S. 82-C adopts the definition of expression "dependent" assigned in cl. (d) of S. 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. The relevant portion of S. 2 (d) is reproduced below: - ''dependent" means any relative of a deceased workman, namely; (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) for wholly or in part dependent on the earning of the workman at the time of his death. (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) a parent other than a widowed mother. 6. From the above, it would appear that in order to be entitled to claim compensation, it is necessary that the claimant must have been wholly dependent on the earning of the workman at the time of his death. Nothing could be brought to our notice in the appeal to show that the appellant was dependent on the earning of the deceased Vinod Kumar Bhandari. It may further be noted in this regard that Vinod Kumar Bhandari was not employed at the time when the accident took place. He was, according to the case of the appellant himself, returning after interview. There being no evidence on record that the appellant was dependent on the earning of his son Vinod Kumar Bhandari, the appellant does not qualify the requirement of S. 2 (d) (iii) (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, his claim for compensation was rightly rejected by the ad hoc Claims Commissioner. 7. Sri R. A. Sharma, counsel for the appellant, however, urged that even if the appellant failed to establish that he was dependent on the earnings of the deceased, he could get compensation under S. 20, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that as the Railway Act is an exhaustive Code on the right of a person to get compensation, S. 20, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, could not be applied for decreeing the claim. Prima facie, the appellant appears to be right. However, on merits, we do not find the appellant's claim to succeed. Sub-section (3) of S. 20 lays down that the obligation of a person to maintain his aged or infirm parents would extend only to a case where the parent is unable to maintain himself out of his own earnings. The appellant was a retired government servant, a presumption could be made that he was having his own earnings. To a case where the parent is having his own earnings, S. 20 could not be applied. Moreover, it appears very doubtful to us that the claim for compensation can be decreed or accepted on the basis of S. 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. From the Railway Act, it appears that only a "dependent" is entitled to file an application and since this expression "dependent" is defined in S. 2 (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the right to get compensation should be confined only to him. Others who did not fall in the definition cannot be held to be entitled to get compensation. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .