CHARUBALA SAHA Vs. EASTERN RAILWAY ADMN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. appeal is directed against the judgement and order dt. 27-2-76 passed by Sri Sital Prosad Chatterjee, the Ad hoc Claims Commissioner, Sealdah in Mis. Judicial Claim Case No. 68 of 1975 whereby the Claim Case preferred by Smt. Sujata Saha, the wife of the victim Janardan Saha for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- had been allowed as against the main respondent the Eastern Railway Administration. The facts of the case in so far those are relevant for our purpose may briefly be summed up as follows :

(2.) 0n 29-1-75 the victim Janardan Saha, a Reserve Bank Employee was coming back to his residence at Birhati by a passenger train and in course of his journey, the train met with an accident at Ultadanga road causing the death of Janardan. His wife Sujata Saha one of the respondents filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- u/s. 82-C of the Railways Act, 1890. This application was filed in April 1975. On 28-8-75. Sujata's father-in-law Personath Saha filed a separate application for himself claiming his own share of the compensation as also one share for his wife Charulata, O.P.W. 7 and also another share for his minor young unmarried daughter on the ground that they were "solely dependent" upon the earning of the victim. The learned Claims Commissioner rejected Personath's claim on two counts. The Claims Commissioner held that Personath's claim was already time barred. And the Claim Commissioner rejected Personath's claim on merits as well holding inter alia that Personath, his wife and daughter were never solely or partly dependent on the earnings of the victim. Personath's application was thus rejected. Being aggrieved thereby Personath has filed this Misc. appeal against the Eastern Railway Administration as also against Sujata.

(3.) Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing for Personath, the appellant, has frankly conceded before us that he has no grievance whatsoever against the Railway Administration. The Claims Commissioner, according to him, had rightly allowed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of the unfortunate accident resulting in the death of his client's son. According to Mr. Mukherjee that sum of Rs. 50,000/- should have been however apportioned amongst and shared by Personath, his wife and his unmarried daughter. The learned Claims Commissioner, according to him, erred in the matter of granting the total sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Sujata alone.