SHANTABAI KRISHNA ZAMRE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order and award dated 17. 8. 1990 passed by the Railway Claims tribunal in Claim Case No. 40/ta-II/ rct/ngp/90 whereby the claim seeking compensation filed by the appellants, legal representatives of the deceased Krishna zamre, was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts are required to be stated as under: deceased Krishna was appointed as a khalasi by railway department in the year 1984 and he was working in such capacity at Pulgaon whereas he was residing at wardha. He used to attend to his duty by travelling in the railway train. On 5. 9. 1986 he was travelling in Bhusaval-Nagpur 385 dn. passenger train and this train met with an accident and was hit by derailed wagons of a goods train at Pulgaon station itself. Krishna died in the said accident. The claimant No. 1 Shantabai is widow, No. 2 kavita and No. 4 Sangeetha are daughters and No. 3 Vinod and No. 5 Pramod are sons of deceased. They had filed application before the Railway Claims Tribunal under section 82-A of the Indian Railways act, 1890 (for short, 'the Railways Act' ). Respondent railway administration denied the liability on the ground that the said deceased Krishna did not have any valid pass or ticket on the date of accident and as such was not a bona fide passenger. The claimant widow Shantabai had examined herself only in support of her contentions whereas no witness has been examined on behalf of the railway administration. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence adduced, had reached the conclusion that the deceased Krishna was not travelling as a bona fide passenger in the railway train and as such his legal representatives/dependants would not be entitled to receive any kind of compensation. Consistent with these findings he had dismissed the claim application by order dated 17. 8. 1990. This order is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) MR. Joshi, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the claimants are the dependants of the deceased in view of section 82-C (1) (d) of the Railways Act read with section 2 (1) (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He contended that the Claims Tribunal did not take into consideration rule 6 of Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1950 by which the dependants of the railway employee/zwna fide passenger are entitled for fixed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and, therefore, in the circumstances this much compensation ought to have been awarded to the claimants. There is no definition of 'bona fide passenger' given in the Railways Act or Rules made thereunder and, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger in the railway train. He contended that since the deceased was the employee and was travelling in the railway train for attending his duty, the dependants would be entitled to receive compensation. He contended that the deceased was working in the Railways since the year 1984 and he had also obtained the railway pass, but unfortunately the railway pass was valid up to 3. 9. 1986 whereas the accident occurred on 5. 9. 1986. He contended that the provisions of the Railways act so far as granting compensation of rs. 1,00,000 is concerned is in the nature of beneficial legislation and, therefore, the claims Tribunal ought to have granted compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest and cost. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and this appeal may kindly be allowed.