MANNAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 23(1) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act No.54 1987, against the order dated 18.11.2003 passed in O.A.No.84 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: One deceased Suresh met with train accident on 02.11.2001. While he was travelling in EMU train, accidentally, he fell down from the train and died on the spot. The claimants are the minor daughter and father of the deceased. They filed a claim petition under Sections 124-A & 125 of the Railways Act claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. The respondent resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: -1. Whether the applicants prove that they are the only dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the applicants prove that the deceased M. Suresh died in an untoward incident on 02.11.2001 while travelling by EMU train between Thiruninravur and Pattabairam R.S.?

(3.) WHAT order? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Railway Claims Tribunal held in respect of the first issue that only the second applicant i.e., minor daughter is the only dependant of the deceased and in respect of the second and third issue, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to an untoward incident defined under Section 123 of the Railways Act. In respect of the 4th issue the Tribunal held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for death and further stated that the minor daughter of the deceased is entitled to get a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation under Section 124-A of the Act. Further, the Tribunal has given the finding that the father of the deceased is not the dependant. Therefore, he is not entitled to any amount by way of compensation. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the father of the deceased is also the dependant of the deceased. Therefore, he is also entitled to compensation and vehemently submitted that he may be permitted to move the Tribunal for withdrawal of accrued interest on the deposited amount by way of representation on the ground that he has necessarily to maintain the minor daughter and the said minor daughter is now under the care and custody of the father of the deceased i.e., grand father. Therefore, suitable direction may be given to the Railway Claims Tribunal to consider the request of the father of the deceased, if he makes representation. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded just, fair and reasonable compensation and rightly held that only the minor daughter of the deceased alone entitled to compensation and also fairly stated if the applicant filed proper application before the Tribunal, it is for him to pursue the same. 5. Heard the counsel. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. I do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal. It is a question of fact. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same is confirmed. In respect of the alternative arguments, it is for the applicant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal by way of representation containing the reasons for the purpose of withdrawal of accrued interest on the compensation amount. There is no dispute that the second claimant is under the care and custody of first claimant. Under these circumstances, liberty is given to the first appellant to move the Railway Claims Tribunal, by way of representation. On receipt of the same, the Railway Claims Tribunal shall pass orders thereon, after giving opportunities to both parties to enable them to produce material evidence to support their case, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.