APHC010482802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3433/2025 Between: 1. PALAGUMMI BHASKARA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O LATE SRI SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT- 62 YEARS, D NO. 2-117, NELAYYA THOTA, KARAPA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT - PIN- 533 462 ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, Rep by General Manager South Central (Zone) Vijayawada (Narasingapalli NASP UNIT KM 730/6/8) ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the Order dated 23.06.2025 in unnumbered OA NO. of 2025 vide E Filing No. 202503201746000, before the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, and allow the present Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SRI ATCHYUT Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 RRR,J C.R.P.No.3433 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: The brother of the petitioner herein had passed away, on 06.06.2022, on account of an accident, while travelling in a train, due to falling down from the running train. The petitioner being the elder brother of the deceased person, had filed a claim, before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati. In the claim petition, the petitioner had specifically stated that, the mother of the petitioner and the deceased person, had passed away, on 01.04.1990 and that, their father had passed away, on 11.07.2003, leaving the petitioner herein as the only legal heir of the deceased person. The Railway Claims Tribunal, by an Order, dated 23.06.2025, had dismissed the claim, on the ground that, the petitioner was not a dependant, as defined under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 and consequently, the claim petition was not maintainable. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by this Order of Dismissal, has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Sri M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the petitioner, would assail the said Order of Dismissal, on two grounds. Firstly, an adequate opportunity of demonstrating the dependency had not been given to the petitioner and the petition had been dismissed without any enquiry. Consequently, the definition of dependant set out in Section 123(b) would have to be read in an expansive manner and any such reading would bring the elder brother of the deceased 3 RRR,J C.R.P.No.3433 of 2025 person also within the ambit of a dependant and consequently, the claim petition would be maintainable. 4. The learned counsel, relying upon a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Union of India Vs. N. Kantabai 1, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay in First Appeal No.50 of 2015, dated 19.06.2025, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of General Manager Northern Railway Vs. Suresh2, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated 10.10.2022, in First Appeal No.68 of 2021, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad, dated 05.09.2018, in First Appeal from Order No.412 of 2004 and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Dhyan Singh & Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors.3, would contend that, the definition set out in Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989, should be construed liberally so as to include a legal heir to claim compensation, when none of the dependants enumerated in Section 123(b) are unavailable. 5. Considering the said judgments, it is necessary to extract Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as follows: “123(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; 1 2003 (6) ALD 40 : 2003 (2) AnWR 275 : 2005 ACJ 1280 2 2009 1 KLT (SN) 4; 2009 KHC 4368 3 2009 AIR (P & H) 56 4 RRR,J C.R.P.No.3433 of 2025 (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 grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.” 6. In the case of Union of India Vs. N. Kantabai and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in First Appeal No.68 of 2021, the married daughter of the deceased person had approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, claiming that she would be a dependant of the deceased person. These claims were rejected, on the ground that, a married daughter does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). This contention was also rejected by the High Courts in both the cases. 7. The Railway Authorities claim that the person enumerated in Section 123(b)(i) of the Act, was only a daughter and consequently, a married daughter would not be entitled to be treated as a dependant and that, she would have to demonstrate that she was dependant on the deceased person, which could not be shown in the said cases. Both these contentions were repelled by the High Courts. The consistent view taken by both the High Courts, is that the word ‘daughter’ in Section 123(b)(i) is not qualified, while such qualification is present in the dependants mentioned in Section 123(b)(ii). Secondly, the question of dependency arises only, in relation to the persons 5 RRR,J C.R.P.No.3433 of 2025 enumerated in Section 123(b)(ii),(iii)&(iv), while no such qualification is available for the persons enumerated in Section 123(b)(i). The Courts had consequently held that, the married daughter was automatically excluded from making a claim without having to demonstrate dependency. In the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay, in First Appeal No.50 of 2015, the father and the sister of the deceased person, had filed claims, which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. An Appeal was filed, during the pendency of which the father of the deceased had passed away. An objection was taken on the maintainability of the Appeal, on the ground that, the married sister of the deceased, cannot continue the Appeal as she does not answer the description on any of the persons mentioned in Section 123(b). This contention was rejected by the High Courts, on the ground that, the sister of the deceased person was continuing the claim as the legal heir of her father and such a claim can be continued as the claim of the father had crystallized, at the time of the death of the deceased person and such claims can be pursued even by the legal representatives of the persons, who are treated as dependents under Section 123(b) of the Act. 8. In the case of General Manager Northern Railway Vs. Suresh before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, the wife of the brother of the claimant as well as his children had passed away in a railway accident and the brother of the claimant had also passed away subsequently, before filing a claim. The claim filed by the claimant was rejected, on the ground that, he is not one of the persons enumerated in Section 123(b) of the Act. This finding was 6 RRR,J C.R.P.No.3433 of 2025 rejected by the High Court, on the ground that, though the brother of the claimant and the husband and father of the deceased persons was unable to file a claim, his right for such compensation had crystallized, at the time of the death of the deceased person. The Hon’ble High Court went on to hold that, in such circumstances, the legal heirs of persons, who have a crystallized claim are also entitled to pursue the claim. 9. In the first set of judgments, the claim was to be pursued by a daughter, who was married and the same was shown to be not permissible. In the second set of cases, the claims were pursued by persons, who were not enumerated in Section 123(b) of the Act and the same was permitted, on the ground that, the claims had either been filed or could not have been filed by the persons enumerated in Section 123 and the claimants were the legal representatives of such persons. Such a causal relationship is not available in the present case as the father and mother of the deceased person and the petitioner herein, had passed away even before the deceased person had passed away. Since the claimant as the elder brother of the deceased person is the sole legal heir, he cannot claim any right to move the claim petition through any of the other dependents. His claim would have to be decided, on the basis of his legal entitlement to move the claim. 10. In the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, it was held that, once no dependant, as defined in Section 123(b) is available, the general law of Hindu Succession or the succession available to persons of 7 RRR,J C.R.P.No.3433 of 2025 other religions should be applied and the claims should be accepted, on that basis. The Hon’ble High Court, had also held that, the question of dependence should be treated as not only economic dependence but also dependence of love, affection, care and protection of the deceased passenger as well. As the Hon’ble High Court took into account the fact that, the Act which was applicable to such cases, before the Railways Act, had been brought in was the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, and the subsequent legislation of the Railways Act, would not take away the right of person under the Fatal Accidents Act, to make a claim. The Hon’ble High Court had then held that, such claims were permissible, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 as loss to the estate falling within Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, could be claimed by the legal representatives of the deceased persons. 11. With due respect, I am unable to agree with both the said findings. The Railways Act, which is a special Act, applicable to issues arising out of the functioning of the railways, being a subsequent legislation, would override the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The legislature, by defining the persons, who could make a claim under the Railways Act, 1989, had effectively shut out the persons who could claim compensation, under the Railways Act, 1989. In such circumstances, it would only be persons, who are enumerated in Section 123(b) or persons, who are raising claims as the legal representatives of the deceased person enumerated in Section 123(b) who would be entitled to move such claims. 8 RRR,J C.R.P.No.3433 of 2025 12. On the question of demonstrating dependence, the said issue would arise only, if the claims fall within the categories enumerated, in Section 123(b) (ii), (iii) & (iv). The petitioner in the present case does not fall in any of these categories. In such a situation, there would be no purpose attained by the petitioner being able to demonstrate his dependence on his younger brother. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J KPV 9 RRR,J C.R.P.No.3433 of 2025 227 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITON No:3433 of 2025 20.12.2025 KPV