THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.646 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.06.2010 passed in O.A.A.No.129 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant/applicant seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs for the death of one Smt. Balalaxmi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was dismissed. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 26.11.2001 the deceased while travelling by train No.1405 Manmad – Kakinada express train, accidentally slipped and fell down at KM No.264/1-2 between Aler and Pembarti railway stations resulting in her death on the spot. Hence, the applicant who is the husband of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4.00 Lakhs from the railways. 3 The Railways contested the said claim petition by filing written statement stating that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 123(c) (2) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and that there is no proof orevidence to show that the deceased was travelling by train No.1405 express on the said date and none witnessed the fall of the deceased at KM No.264/1-2 between Aler and Pembarti and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased? ii. Whether on 26.11.2001 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? iii. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c) of the Railways Act? iv. Relief and costs? 5 During the course of trial, the applicant himself was examined as A.W.1 and he also got examined another witness as A.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked on behalf of the applicant. On the side of the respondent/Railways, R.Ws.1&2 were examined, but no documents were marked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application observing that though the applicant has got children he had not made them as parties to the claim application and hence he is not the only person dependent of the deceased. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicant. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award impugned in this appeal is correct, legal and valid? 8 The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the claim application was dismissed on the ground that the children of the deceased were not impleaded as parties to the claim application, and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned award giving liberty to the applicant to implead the son and daughters of the deceased as parties to the claim application. 9 On the other hand the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/railways contended that during the course of evidence it came to light that the deceased was having sons and daughters, but they were not impleaded and therefore, the claim is not maintainable under section 124 of the Act and hence the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application and that order needs no interference and hence prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10 For claiming compensation under section 124-A of the Act, all the dependents of the deceased have to be impleaded as parties to the claim under Section 123 of the Act. ‘Dependents’ include wife, husband, son and daughter and in case the deceased is unmarried or is a minor, his parents. So it is not in dispute before this court that the deceased was having sons and daughters, but they were not impleaded as parties to the claim petition. In fact, the applicant himself has stated in his affidavit that the sons and daughters were not impleaded. Therefore, as the applicant did not implead all the dependents to the claim application, granting compensation to the applicant alone does not arise. One more opportunity can be given to the applicant to implead all the dependents in the original application. Since there are lapses on the part of the applicant, he is not entitled for interest from the date of application till the date of award, in case Tribunal grants compensation. 11 Hence, this appeal is allowed, the order impugned in this appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to the applicant to implead all the dependents of the deceased as parties to the claim petition within four weeks and thereafter the claim application has to be adjudicated in accordance with law. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 12.09.2011 Kvsn