1 fa78-99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO.78 OF 1999 Union of India, ] represented by General Manager, ] .. Appellant Central Railways, Mumbai C.S.T. ] (Orig. Respondent) V/s. 1. Rukhsana Md. Hidayat ] Shaikh, Adult. ] 2. Nazneen Md. Hidayat ] Shaikh, Minor. ] 3. Sarafaraz Md. Hidayat ] Shaikh, Minor. ] All residing at 984, Budhwar ] Peth, A.D. Camp Chowk, ] Pune – 11. ] (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ] .. Respondents through their natural ] (Orig. Applicants) Guardian No.1.) ] ..... Mr. A. N. Samant for the appellant. None for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 21, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Union of 2 fa78-99 India though the General Manager, Central Railways. The challenge in the Appeal is to the Judgment and order dated 21st August, 1998 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. The respondents claimed to be dependents of the deceased Mohammed Hidayat Shaikh who died in a train accident on 30th November, 1994. It is alleged that alongwith the other breakdown staff, the deceased was deputed for re-railing work at Lonavala. While passing through the tunnel, the train dashed against a stationed goods train and in the said accident several staff members received bodily injuries and two workmen died including the said Mohammed Shaikh. The respondents claimed compensation by filing the claim petition. 2. In the reply, it was contended by the appellant that a cheque in the sum of Rs.59,868/- was offered by the appellant to the respondents as compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The second defence was that the break down train cannot be considered as a train carrying passengers and, therefore, the deceased cannot be considered as a passenger. 3. The learned Member of the Tribunal referred to the admitted 3 fa78-99 position that the “passenger includes a railway servant on duty”. It was held that the brake down train was carrying passengers who happened to be railway employees who had proceeded for carrying out repairs. Relying upon this provision of the Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1989, compensation of Rs. 2 lacs was granted alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claim was not maintainable. He submitted that at highest a claim under the Workman's Compensation Act could have been maintainable. 5. In view of the legal position that the term passenger includes a railway servant on duty, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention that the deceased was not a passenger. Admittedly, break down train was carrying railway employees on duty who were “Passengers”. Therefore, the hyper-technical contention raised by the appellant has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 5. As per the provisions of the Railway Accidents (Compensation) 4 fa78-99 Rules, 1989, at the relevant time, compensation payable was Rs.2 lacs. Later on, by amending the Rules, the compensation payable in respect of death was increased to Rs.4 lacs. There is no cross Appeal or cross objections filed by the respondents claiming amount of Rs.4 lacs. Considering the facts of the case, interest granted at the rate of Rs.12% per annum from the date of the impugned order will have to be confirmed. 6. Hence, I pass the following order : :: O R D E R :: i. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE