R. B. Misra, J. - (1.) (for self and for J. M. L. Sinha, J.) :-The present appeal is directed against the decision of the Claims Commissioner, Northern Railway, Allahabad, dated 22-1-1976. The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass
(2.) A bogie of Upper India Express (14 Down) caught fire while running near Manoharganj Railway Station, Northern Railway, resulting in a number of casualties. One of the claimants was Smt. Baqridan. She preferred a claim for compensation under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act alleging that her husband Abdul Razzaq died in that accident and she was entitled to receive compensation. She, however, died before she could lead any evidence in support of her claim. One Mohammad Yunus applied on 12th December, 1975, vide paper No. 15-B for time to move an application for substitution and, actually, the application 16-A was moved on 23rd December, 1975, for substitution of eight persons in place of Smt. Baqridan. Those persons were brought on the record, but a question arose whether they were entitled to compensation. The Claims Commissioner came to the conclusion that these heirs were not entitled to get any compensation. In support of his view, he relied upon Hatima Ebrahim v. Isubat Abdul Karim, AIR 1965 Gujarat 156. That was a case of apportionment and compensation in respect of the death of a passenger among the various claimants That case has got no relevance to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, the simple question is that if Smt. Baqridan had applied for compensation as widow of the deceased, whether her heirs could claim what was claimed by Smt. Baqridan. Sri P. D. Kaushik, appearing for the appellants, placed reliance on Pasupatt Butt v. Kalvin Jute Mills, AIR 1937 Cal. 495. That was a case under the Workmen's Compensation Act. On the death of a workman through some accident arising in course of his employment, a right to the compensation, payable by the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act vests in his dependant or dependants actually existing at the time of his death ; and if such dependant dies before any claim to such compensation is made or investigated, the right passes on to his heirs or legal representatives as they are included in the word "dependant" in Section 8.
(3.) RELIANCE was also placed on Kavari Structural v. Bhogram, 1978 Indian Factories and Labour Reports 31. The question in that appeal was whether a "dependant," as defined in Section 2 (d), who preferred a claim, having died during the pendency of the proceedings, his or her legal representative could prosecute the claim for compensation and relying on Pasupati Dutt v. Kelvin Jute Mills (supra), it was held by the Karnataka Court that the claim could be prosecuted by the legal representatives. Sri Lalji Sinha, appearing for the Railway, however, contends that the two cases cited on behalf of the appellants, have no application to the facts of the present case as they arose under different Acts and the position in these Acts was materially different from the position of the Indian Railways Act.;