SARAT CHANDRA NANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals under Section 82-F (2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act') arise out of common award dated 7-5-1987 passed by Ex officio Claims Commissioner. Jabalpur, whereby the two applications No. 6/84 and 7/84 (Saratchand Nanda v. Union of India) filed under Section 82C of the Act claiming compensation for death of one N. K. Nanda and his wife Tapaswani Nanda, were dismissed holding that the appellants do not fall within the meaning of "dependant" as used under Section 82C of the Act.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the appeals are these : The appellants/ claimants are the sons and daughters of N. K. Nanada and 'Tapaswani Nanda who on 15-9-1984 were travelling in first-class compartment of 143 Dn Kalinga Express holding Ticket Nos. 6519 and 6518 respectively which collided with a goods train at New Katni Junction as a result of which both with other passengers were killed in the train accident.

(3.) The appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 2,49,000/-for the death of N. K. Nanda who was a retired Deputy Commissioner of Excise and Rs. 1,00,000/- for the death of his wife Tapaswani Nanda and Rs. 9,000/-which the deceased N. K. Nanda was carrying with him which was lost in train accident. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the application for compensation under Section 82C of the Act, as the claimants are not "dependant" within the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the W.C. Act). On the evidence adduced by the parties, the Claims Commissioner held that the two deceased were bona fide passengers holding ticket Nos. 6518 and 6519 who died on 15th September, 1984 on account of accident of 143 Dn Kalinga Express, and for each death the compensation of Rupees 1,00,000/ - was payable according to Schedule. The deceased were carrying Rs. 9,000/cash for the marriage of their son which was lost in the accident. However, Claims Commissioner dismissed the applications holding that the claimants do not fall within the definition of "dependant" as defined under Section 2(d) of the W C. Act.