1 fa1113 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1113 OF 2006 Ms Sita Kishor Jadhav & Ors. ...Appellants vs. The Union of India ...Respondent Mr.G.J.Mohanrao for the appellants Mr.Anand Samant for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 27, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and order dated 23rd February 2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. 2 The appellants made a claim for compensation under section 124-A of the Railways Act,1989 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). By the impugned Judgment and order, the said claim application has been dismissed. The Tribunal held that the case of accidental fall of the deceased from the train was established and the respondent had not established any defence available to under section 124-A of the said Act. The Tribunal observed that the claim has been made by the wife and sons of the deceased. However, the name of the daughter of the deceased was not shown as an applicant in the application. The Tribunal observed that in view of section 125 of the said Act, the appellants have contravened the provisions of the said Act by not impleading and even not naming the daughter as a claimant in the application for the reasons best known to them. 2 fa1113 3 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted as as the application for compensation made under section 124-A enures to benefit of all the dependents, the claim application was maintainable even in absence of the daughter of the deceased. On instructions he stated that the daughter is a married daughter. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no interference is called for. 4 The only issue to be decided is regarding the maintainability of the application on account of non joinder of the daughter of the deceased. Clause (b) of section 123 defines the dependents. Clause (b) reads thus: (b) dependant means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely;- (i)the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii)the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependent wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; 5 In view of sub clause (i) of clause (b) of section 123, the daughter is a dependent who is entitled to claim compensation under section 124-A of the said Act. Section 125 of the said Act reads thus : 3 fa1113 125. Application for compensation - (1) An application for compensation under section 124 (or section 124-A) may be made to the Claims Tribunal- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury or suffered any loss, or (b) by any agent duly authorized by such person in this behalf, or (c) where such person is a minor, by his guardian, or (d) where death has resulted from the accident (or the untoward incident) by any dependant of the deceased or where such a dependant is a minor, by his guardian. (2) Every application by a dependant for compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every dependant. 6 If a claim application is filed by some of the dependents, the same is to be treated as the claim filed on behalf of every other claimant who is not party to the application. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant is right to the extent that it was not necessary to implead the married daughter as a party to the claim application. However, it was absolutely necessary for the appellant to disclose the names of all the dependents. In fact, in view of provisions of section 125 of the said Act, in any claim application made either under section 124 or 124-A of the said Act, the applicants/claimants are under an obligation to disclose names of all the dependents including dependents who are not parties to the claim application. In fact, the Railway Claims Tribunal ought to insist that in all such 4 fa1113 applications, a statement shall be made by the applicants that either there are no other dependents or that there are dependents who are not parties to the claim application. In such a case, the applicants are bound to disclose all the particulars of the said dependents who are not made parties. 7 The learned counsel for the appellants on instructions has accepted that deceased has a married daughter. Though the claim application deserves to be allowed, the appellants can withdraw only their share in the compensation. The share of the appellants in view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act,1956, will be 3/4th. As there is a default on the part of the appellants, they are entitled to interest only if within the period fixed by this Court, the compensation amount is not deposited by the respondent. 8 Hence, I pass the following order : i) The finding recorded on issue no.2 under the impugned Judgment and Order is quashed and set aside and it is held that the claim application was maintainable. ii)The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellants and said Kavita, the Daughter of the deceased. iii)Time of three months from today is granted to the respondent to deposit compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The deposit shall be made with the Tribunal. iv)If the respondent fails to deposit the amount within a period of three months from today, the same will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this Judgment. 5 fa1113 v) The tribunal will permit the appellants to withdraw their 3/4th share in the compensation. As and when the married daughter makes an application for withdrawal of her share, the Tribunal will permit the withdrawal only after the tribunal is satisfied about the identity of the married daughter. vi)Appeal is allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE