THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.230 OF 2010 JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 17.02.2010, in O.A.A.No.302 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Padmavathi (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 21.12.2001, was dismissed. 2. The claim application was filed by one D.Venkateswarlu and the parents of the deceased. D.Venkateswarlu stated that he married his sister’s daughter-deceased on 09.09.2000 with the blessings of his sister, brother-in-law and others and lived together happily for six months. Due to some disputes, his wife went back to her parents’ house and one Ahmed Basha eloped her and they lived as husband and wife for sometime. On 21.12.2001, the deceased and Ahmed Basha went to Rajampeta by bus and when they were returning by train No.7498, Ahmed Basha pushed her out from the train and she sustained severe injuries. She was taken to the hospital by the railway staff where she gave a statement, but she died at 18.10 hours on 28.12.2001 in the hospital. Ahmed Basha absconded with the tickets. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicant and stated that even if the incident was accepted to be true, the applicant (at that time, there was only one applicant) had no locus standi in the matter since the deceased was the wife of Ahmed Basha, as per her dying declaration to the police, police records including inquest report and other documents and also the death certificate. There was no ticket found and hence, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him/her in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? and 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and no documents were got marked. On behalf of the Tribunal, C.W.1 was examined and marked the C.D. file as Ex.C-1. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicants. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. There cannot be any dispute that Section 125 of the Act inter alia provides for an application for compensation may be made to the Claims Tribunal when death has resulted from an untoward incident by any dependant of the deceased. Sub Section 2 provides that every application by a dependant for compensation under the section shall be for the benefit of every other dependant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that since the marriage of the deceased with Ahmed Basha is void and no evidence was adduced to show that the deceased embraced Islamism and married the said person, she can be treated as an unmarried person and hence, atleast the parents of the deceased can be granted compensation; and prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways/respondent contended that since the investigation and the statement given by the deceased would clearly go to show that the deceased was a married person, the parents are not entitled to any compensation; that there is no evidence to show that applicant No.1 is the husband of the deceased and in the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and prays to sustain the same. 11. A categorical finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that while the deceased was travelling with her husband, her husband pushed her down from the train as a result of which, she fell down and sustained injuries and died subsequently. Admittedly, the statement of the deceased was recorded as Ex.A-1. The finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger is also unassailed. The only question is that whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased or not. Applicant No.1 claims to be the husband and applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. As far as applicant No.1 is concerned, there is no evidence to show that his marriage with the deceased was performed in accordance with the custom prevailing in his community. In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that applicant No.1 is a dependent within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Act. Coming to the aspect of dependency of applicant Nos.2 and 3, they claim to be the parents of the deceased. Section 123(b) of the Act, reads as follows: (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 dependant 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 grand parent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger. This clause would clearly go to show that if the deceased was an unmarried or a minor, the parents are said to be the dependents. The Inquest Report, First Information Report and Death Certificate would clearly go to show that one Ahmed Basha was the husband of the deceased. The applicants also produced Ex.A-8, Family Members Certificate, which was issued by the Sarpanch, who is not supposed to issue such a certificate. No reliance can be placed on this document. Exs.A-6 and A-7, certificates issued by the Village Revenue Officer, would only go to show that applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. If a person is married, the parents cannot be said to the dependants of the deceased. There is no evidence to show that the marriage of the deceased with Ahmed Basha was performed in accordance with the caste custom. Even assuming for a moment that the marriage of the deceased with Ahmed Basha is illegal or void in the eye of law, but the fact remains that the deceased was a married woman. In case of a married woman, the parents are not entitled to any compensation. They are entitled to compensation only in case when the son or daughter is unmarried. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the procedure for Promulgation of or conversion to Islam wherein it is held as under: “A non-Muslim can become a Muslim by undergoing the ceremonies of conversion prescribed by Islam. These ceremonies are:- (i) A non-Muslim who desires to become a Muslim may go to a Mosque. (ii) In Mosque, Imam will ask him:”Are you voluntarily embracing Islam.” (iii) If that person replies in positive, he is given the Kalma of Tawhid (La Illaha Illal-lah Mohammed-dur Rashul Allah) meaning thereby that there is only one God and Mohammed (P.B.U.H.) is his Prophet) to recite. (iv) On completing the recitation of the Kalma of Tawhid, the ceremony of conversion is complete and the non-Muslim becomes a Muslim. (v) Then Imam confers a Muslim name on that convert. Sometimes, in Mosques, a register is also kept in which the name of the convert is entered and he puts his signature thereto.” He also relied upon a decision of the High Court of Allahabad in between Dilbar Habib Siddiqui vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[1] wherein at para No.7, it is held as under: “In our above conclusion we are fortified by the fact that in the affidavit and application filed by Khusboo herself subsequent to her alleged contract marriage she has described herself as Khushboo and not by any Islamic name. As Khushboo she could not have contracted marriage according to Muslim customs. In those referred documents she has addressed herself as Khushboo Jaiswal daughter of Rajesh Jaiswal. Thus what is conspicuously clear unerringly without any ambiguity is that Khushboo Jaiswal never converted and embraced Islam and therefore her marital tie with the petitioner Dilbar Habib Siddiqui is a void marriage since the same is contrary to Islamic dicta and tenets of Holy Quran. It is recollected here that Nikah i.e. marriage in pre-Islamic Arabia, meant different forms of sex relationships between a man and a woman. Prophet Mohammed brought about a complete change in the position of woman in society through Holy Quran, which is the primary and basic source of Islamic Law. In this respect we can do no better than to refer the verses of Holy Quran. Sura 2 Ayat 221 of The Holy Quran as is mentioned in the text book of Mohammedan Law by I. Mulla, 1st Edition, 2nd reprint, at page 162, provides as follows: “Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe……. Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe.” There is no dispute about the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court that unless certain procedure is prescribed by Islamic law is performed, there is no valid marriage in the eye of law. But in this case, whether the marriage is void or not is not the question. The question under Section 123 of the Act is whether the deceased was married or unmarried. In case of unmarried, the parents are entitled to compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application, as the applicants are not the dependents on the deceased in terms of the definition of “dependent” under Section 123(b) of the Act. Furthermore, the statement of the deceased was recorded by the police during the course of investigation. As the statement of the deceased falls under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is a substantial piece of evidence. From the statement of Ex.A-1, it is clear that Ahmed Basha was the husband of the deceased and they both travelled in a train after purchasing a ticket and in the mid section, Ahmed Basha pushed her from the train intentionally resulting the death of the deceased. A statement made by a person, either written or verbal, as to the cause of the death or anyone of the circumstances resulting in her death in case in which the death of that person comes into question is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. So, from the statement of Ex.A-1, it is clear that Ahmed Basha was the husband of the deceased but not applicant No.1. Even applicant No.1 did not produce any evidence to show that his marriage with the deceased was performed in accordance with the caste custom. Therefore, in view of the fact that the deceased was a married person as on the date of incident, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are not entitled to any compensation, as they are not the dependents within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Act. Hence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20th October, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.230 OF 2010 Date:20.10.2011 AMD [1] 2010-ADJ-4-724