HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3398 and 3423 of 2007 challenging the order dated 24-8-2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, declining applications for compensation on account of death of the Harpreet Kaur and Baljinder Kaur sisters of the Petitioner No. 2, a minor and grand daughters of Petitioner No. 1.
(2.) ON 14-12-2004, Harpreet Kaur and Baljinder Kaur, and their parents boarded DMU passenger train from Railway Station Jalandhar city for journey to Pathankot. The said train collided head on with Ahmedabad bound Jammu Tawi Express train near Harse Mansar village (about 25 Kms from Pathankot) as a result of which both sisters of the petitioner No. 2 and their parents died. The deceased were unmarried girls of 20 and 19 years of age. It is the case of the petitioners that except the petitioners there is no other legal heir or dependent who is entitled to claim compensation on account of death of deceased Baljinder kaur and Harpreet Kaur. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners do not fall within the definition of dependent as in S.123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short "Railways Act"), therefore, the claim application is not maintainable. It was found that the minor brother of the deceased cannot be taken to be dependent upon the deceased sisters when parents of petitioner No. 2 were alive. It is the said finding which is disputed in the present writ petitions.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the remedy of compensation under the Railways Act and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the RCT Act) is the remedy to provide compensation at an early date by the Tribunal specifically constituted under the aforesaid Acts. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred in terms of S.15 of the RCT Act as the matter of compensation falls within the scope of S.13(1) and (1A) of the RCT Act. It is contended that the minor brother, paternal grandparents are dependent within the meaning of S.123(b)(ii) and (iv) of the Railways Act. It is further contended that the dependents in clause (ii) and (iv) are not the financially dependent but has to be construed as the one who is entitled to claim compensation on account of loss of the estate as well. It is contended that in the absence of any other legal heir, the petitioner No. 2 who is the nearest legal heir of the deceased would be entitled to compensation on account of the death of Baljinder Kaur and Harpreet Kaur in the manner provided for under the Railways Act. It is contended that in terms of S.2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the action for death caused by any wrongful act, neglect or default is for benefit of the representatives of the deceased on account of loss of his estate. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law in declining compensation to the petitioners on account of death of Baljinder Kaur and Harpreet Kaur in the railway accident. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Gobald Motor Service Limited v. R. M. K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1; Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai, 1987 (II) Accidents Claims Journal 561 : AIR 1987 SC 1690; and a Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Parkash Chand v. Pal Singh, 1985 PLR 538 : AIR 1984 P and H 329.;