FAO-1233-2017 (O&M) [217] Shanti Devi (since deceased) through LR Bhim Chand Union of India and others Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] Shanti Devi to maintain claim petition under Section 124 of the Railways Act seeking compensation on account of death of Tarsem Lal in an untoward incident dated [2] of Amarnath. His parents had already died. deceased husband Diyal Chand was elder brother after death of his parents was residing with her and she being upon Tarsem Lal the pendency of the application. Her son Bhim Chand son of filed an application seeking his impleadment as LR of with his sisters [3] (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1233 Date of Decision : Shanti Devi (since deceased) through LR Bhim Chand versus Union of India and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Upender Prashar, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Monica Chawla, Advocate for respondent No.1-UOI. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The issue in the present appeal relates to locus of the deceased Shanti Devi to maintain claim petition under Section 124 of the Railways Act seeking compensation on account of death of Tarsem Lal in an untoward dated 24.01.2013. The admitted facts on the record of Amarnath. His parents had already died. deceased husband Diyal Chand was elder brother after death of his parents was residing with her and she being Tarsem Lal is entitled to maintain claim. the pendency of the application. Her son Bhim Chand son of filed an application seeking his impleadment as LR of with his sisters. The Tribunal has non-suited the In the considered opinion of this Court, even the locus of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1233-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.05.2025 …Appellant ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate Advocate The issue in the present appeal relates to locus of the deceased Shanti Devi to maintain claim petition under Section 124 of the Railways Act seeking compensation on account of death of Tarsem Lal in an untoward facts on the records are that Tarsem Lal was son of Amarnath. His parents had already died. Shanti Devi claims that her deceased husband Diyal Chand was elder brother to Amarnath. Tarsem Lal after death of his parents was residing with her and she being dependent is entitled to maintain claim. Shanti Devi also died during the pendency of the application. Her son Bhim Chand son of Diyal Chand filed an application seeking his impleadment as LR of Shanti Devi along suited the legal representatives. In the considered opinion of this Court, even the locus of Shanti 1 The issue in the present appeal relates to locus of the deceased- Shanti Devi to maintain claim petition under Section 124 of the Railways Act seeking compensation on account of death of Tarsem Lal in an untoward was son claims that her Tarsem Lal dependent also died during Diyal Chand along Shanti Dinesh Kumar 2025.05.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1233-2017 (O&M) Devi to maintain the claim petition cannot be accepted. Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as under: [4] Railways Act (O&M) to maintain the claim petition cannot be accepted. Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as under:- “ 125. Application for compensation. (1) An application for compensation under section 124 or section 124A may be made to the Claims Tribunal (a) by the person who suffered any loss, or (b) by any agent duly authorised by such person in this behalf, or (c) where such person is a minor (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 other dependant.” ‘Dependant” has been defined under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act. The same reads as under:- “ 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; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried widowed sister, widowed daughter minor child of a pre wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grand parent wholly dependant on the to maintain the claim petition cannot be accepted. Section 125 of the compensation.— An application for compensation under section 124 or section 124A may be made to the Claims Tribunal— by the person who has sustained the injury or suffered any loss, or by any agent duly authorised by such person in this where such person is a minor, by his guardian, or 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 Every application by a dependant for compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every other has been defined under Section 123(b) of the “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:— the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, 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; a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; the paternal grand parent wholly dependant on the 2 to maintain the claim petition cannot be accepted. Section 125 of the An application for compensation under section 124 or has sustained the injury or by any agent duly authorised by such person in this , by his guardian, or 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 Every application by a dependant for compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every other has been defined under Section 123(b) of the “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, sister, law and a deceased son, if dependant deceased daughter, if wholly the paternal grand parent wholly dependant on the Dinesh Kumar 2025.05.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1233-2017 (O&M) [5] held to be dependant upon parents and was thus, residing with [6] Court in 2010, decided on 20.05.2010 and another case, as the issue in that case was regarding substitution of the representatives (Procedure locus of the the present appeal being not dependant upon the deceased Court does not find any reason to interfere in the ordered to be [7] disposed off 23.05.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) deceased passenger Shanti Devi thus, having her own son and daughter held to be dependant upon Tarsem Lal. Rather parents and was thus, residing with Shanti Devi Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Court in ‘Union of India versus Phoolsaye and another’, FAO 2010, decided on 20.05.2010. The ratio of law laid down in and another’s case (supra), cannot be held to be applicable to the present as the issue in that case was regarding substitution of the representatives i.e. governed by Rule 26 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Procedure) Rules, 1989. Here in the present case, the issue r locus of the original claim. Finding that Shanti Devi the present appeal being not dependant upon the deceased Court does not find any reason to interfere in the to be dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. .05.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable deceased passenger.” thus, having her own son and daughters cannot be . Rather Tarsem Lal, who lost his Shanti Devi was dependant upon her. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this ‘Union of India versus Phoolsaye and another’, FAO-1265 ratio of law laid down in ‘Phoolsaye cannot be held to be applicable to the present as the issue in that case was regarding substitution of the legal i.e. governed by Rule 26 of the Railway Claims Tribunal n the present case, the issue relates to the Shanti Devi has no right to maintain the present appeal being not dependant upon the deceased-Tarsem Lal. T Court does not find any reason to interfere in the present appeal, the same All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 3 cannot be , who lost his the judgment of this 1265- Phoolsaye cannot be held to be applicable to the present legal i.e. governed by Rule 26 of the Railway Claims Tribunal elates to the no right to maintain . This same is All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands Dinesh Kumar 2025.05.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document