UNION OF INDIA Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Union of India assailing the award dated 30/05/1997 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to claimant-respondent Smt.Savitri Devi for the accidental death of her daughter-Smt.Saroj Chakravarti in the accident took place between 1593 Down Kota-Bhopal Passenger Train and Goods Train between Chhabra Gugor and Bhulon Stations on Kota-Ruthiyai single line section of Kota Division of Western Railway on 21/09/1993 when deceased was travelling in the aforesaid passenger train along with her husband, who also died in the accident.

(2.) Shri S.C. Purohit, learned counsel appearing for appellant-Union of India has raised four arguments in assailing the award of the learned Tribunal. His first contention is that the learned Tribunal erred in law by not considering that the deceased was not possessing with the valid ticket. His second contention is that present one was second claim application, which was on the same subject-matter. Earlier claim application filed as Original Application No.37/1997 by the father-in-law of the deceased Shri Kundanlal Sharma was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23/01/1996, therefore, second claim application was not maintainable. His third contention is that as per provisions of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989, the claimant, who is mother of the deceased, could not claim compensation because deceased was married daughter, whereas as per the aforesaid provision, compensation can be claimed for the accidental death of deceased by wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his/her parent. His fourth contention is that the accident took place on 21/09/1993, whereas the original application was filed belatedly on 04/12/1996 therefore the original application itself was liable to be dismissed on delay and latches.

(3.) Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned-award, I find that first submission of the counsel for the appellant with regard to deceased not possessing the valid ticket, cannot be accepted because the learned Tribunal has rightly held that when luggage and other articles of the deceased could not be traced from the accident site, it cannot be expected of a passenger, who met with an accident and died to remain in possession with the ticket even after his death particularly when the deceased was travelling with her husband and both died in the accident, there being no surviving person at the relevant time travelling with them. Second submission that subsequent original application on the same subject-matter was not entertainable, is also not acceptable because the earlier Original Application No.37/1994 was only dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21/03/1996, not being maintainable. Otherwise also, the previous original application was not maintainable, having been filed by the father-in-law of the deceased, who did not fall within the purview of 'dependent' and was thus withdrawn. But there was no bar for the claimant in filing the original claim application for the death of her daughter because she was fully dependent upon her and thus was covered within the definition of 'dependent' as per the provisions of Railways Act, 1989. Third submission that present Original Application No.II-2/97 at the instance of mother is not maintainable, also cannot be accepted because there is evidence of Shri Ashok Kumar Chakravarti has remained un-rebutted, who proved dependency of mother-Smt.Savitri Devi / claimant upon her daughter Smt.Saroj Chakravarti, who died in train accident therefore the claimant fall within the category of 'dependent' provided under the provisions of Section 123(b)(ii) of the Railways Act, 1989. Fourth submission with regard to enormous delay in filing original application, is also a technical plea. A genuine claim cannot be thrown on mere technicalities. It is not the case of the Railways that deceased did not die due to accident. In fact, they have admitted this fact. The railways admitted death of the deceased due to accident in para 6 of their reply to the affidavit filed by the claimant. Rather, they did not oppose the assertion of the claimant that the deceased was travelling on second class valid railway ticket in para 8 of reply to the said affidavit. Railways did not challenge the validity of ticket before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur therefore, this question attained finality and cannot be allowed to be raised in the appeal for the first time now at this belated stage.