(1.) The daughter of the appellants (hereafter the victim) died on August 2, 1999 in a rail accident. Such accident occurred at about 1.55 a.m. as a result of a collision between the Brahmputra Mail and the Awadh Assam Express near Gaisal railway station in this State under the jurisdiction of the Northern Frontier Railway. The accident claimed the lives of several persons including the victim and her husband. The father-in-law of the victim had initially filed a claim application for compensation. It was dismissed on May 12, 2000 as not maintainable in view of section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereafter the 1989 Act). In terms thereof, the father-in-law of a deceased passenger is not entitled to be treated as "dependant" of the victim. It was thereafter that the appellants filed a claim application for compensation under Rule 5 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 exercising the right to claim compensation conferred by section 125 of the 1989 Act read with section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereafter the 1987 Act). The tribunal considered the application and by its decision dated February 16, 2001, declined to grant compensation to the appellants on the ground of lack of evidence to prove that the appellants were dependant on the victim, either wholly or partly. It is this decision dated February 16, 2001 that is called in question in this appeal under section 23 of the 1987 Act.
(2.) Mr. Debnath, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has referred to section 123 of the 1989 Act and section 13 of the 1987 Act as well as a Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in (Dhyan Singh and anr. v. Union of India and ors., (2009) ACJ 1263) to contend that the word "dependant" in sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of section 123 of the 1989 Act does not mean economic dependence only, but would also include dependence of love, affection, care and protection of the deceased passenger as well for his or her parents. He has, accordingly, prayed that the decision of the tribunal rejecting the application for compensation ought to be set aside and the appellants granted adequate compensation in terms of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereafter the 1990 Rules), as amended w.e.f. January 1, 2017, by following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (Rathi Menon v. Union of India, (2001) AIRSCW 1074), since applied by a coordinate Bench of this Court in its decision reported in (Smt. Radha Yadav v. Union of India, (2017) 3 WBLR 557 (Cal)).
(3.) None has appeared for the respondent to contest the appeal despite service; hence hearing of the appeal proceeded ex parte.