High Court dismissed an appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal order that denied compensation to an appellant claiming to be adopted by a deceased passenger. The court found the appeal bereft of merit as the appellant failed to substantiate his adoption status under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
PANKAJ KATARIA & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Adv. versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal and Mr. Nikhil Kumar Chaubey, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA J U D G M E N T
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
04.05.2013, Smt. Madhu Kataria (deceased herein) aged 58 years,
1 23. Appeals.—(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5of1908) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every order, not being an interlocutory order, of the Claims Tribunal, to the High Court having jurisdiction over the place where the Bench is located.
(2) No appeal shall lie from an order passed by the Claims Tribunal with the consent of the parties.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the order appealed against.
2RCT Act
3RCT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMODFAO 14/2015 Page 1 of 6 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:31.01.2024 20:38:46
boarded the train to travel from Ferozepur Cantt. to Shakurbasti on a reserved ticket bearing No. 37065621 purchased for Rs. 494/- in Punjab Mail train No. 12138 with PNR No. 2446962413. On 05.05.2013, at about 4:30A.M., when the train reached near Shakurbasti railway station, the deceased went to the toilet and came back to wash her hands at the sink near the gate of the train compartment. Suddenly, there was a jerk in the train due to which the deceased fell down from the train and received grievous injuries all over the body and subsequently, died on the spot. The deceased was rushed to Aruna Asaf Ali government hospital, mortuary, Subzi Mandi, Delhi vide PMR No. 681/13 on 06.05.2013, but she died. FIR bearing DD No. 4-A dated 05.05.2013 was registered at PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Police Station, Delhi. As a result, the appellant (who claims to be the son of the deceased) filed a claim petition No.O.A.(IIu) 233/2013 on 28.10.2013 seeking statutory compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the respondent railways.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE RCT AND IMPUGNED ORDER:
4 Claim Application
Signature Not Verified
FAO 14/2015 Page 2 of 6
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:31.01.2024 20:38:46
Will by the deceased dated 28.01.2014 and that the respondent filed their written statements without any documents or any DRM (Divisional Railway Manager) report. In this regard, Section 123(b) of RA reads:
“01. According to the applicant, Late Madhu Kataria, who died as a spinster adopted her nephew Pankaj as her son. Further, the applicant adds that the deceased is not survived by any other dependent except him.”
“03. I agree with the Ld. Counsel and also observe from the will of Smt. Madhu Kataria registered on 28.01.2014 that the deceased had never referred to the applicant as her adopted son. In fact, Pankaj who is actually her nephew is referred by her in the will as her cousin. A nephew is not a dependent of the deceased, in terms of section 123(b) of the Act. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that 37 year old applicant Pankaj was economically dependent on his aunt Madhu. The application of Shri. Pankaj Kataria, is therefore, not maintainable.”
5 RA
Signature Not Verified
FAO 14/2015 Page 3 of 6
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:31.01.2024 20:38:46
ANALYSIS & DECISION:
Signature Not Verified
FAO 14/2015 Page 4 of 6
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:31.01.2024 20:38:46
19566 and in particular, whether the conditions under Section 11 of the said Act were satisfied. Learned RCT rightly observed that in the Will dated 28.01.2014, the deceased testator did not make any mention of the appellant being her adopted son. Reference can be invited to the decision in Krishnakumar G. Vs. Union of India7 (Kerala High
Court), wherein it was held as under:-
“9. We must notice two things straightaway. The definition is to apply “unless the context otherwise requires”. We must immediately note that the legal heirs/legal representatives of a deceased passenger are not dependents for the purpose of Section 123(b). Only the persons specified in clauses-1 to 4 of Section 123(b) can be reckoned as dependents. We emphasise that all legal heirs/legal representatives are not specified to be dependents.”
“28. We may note that while under the general law all legal heirs/legal representatives may be entitled to make an application or continue the application in the light of the declaration under Section 146, so far as a claim under Section 124A is concerned, not all the legal heirs of the deceased victim, but only the dependents can stake the claim. Section 146 CPC incorporates the principle that where a dependent can make an application, his legal heirs can also make the application.”
Singh and Another vs. Union of India and Others8 (Punjab And Haryana High Court), wherein it was held as under:-
“12. The matter can be examined from another angle as well. Section 123(b) of the Railways Act defines “dependent” to include minor brother if dependent partly or wholly on the deceased passenger. The word dependency is not restricted to economic dependence but dependence of love, affection, care and protection of the deceased passenger as well. The word “dependent” in clause (ii) or Section 123(b) of the Railways
6 Act
7 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 4231
8 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 1307
Signature Not Verified
FAO 14/2015 Page 5 of 6
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:31.01.2024 20:38:46
Act is not to be given restrictive meaning but contextual meaning keeping in view the objective of the statute so as to compensate unfortunate death of a passenger in railway accident. Such provision cannot be interpreted so as to benefit the tortfeasor which in the present case would be the Railways. Sub-section (ii) of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act deals with dependency wholly or in part, therefore, the dependence of care at protection, love and affection by the deceased on their minor brother would be dependence within the meaning of the Act. It may be noticed that the parental grand parents can be said to be dependents only if they are wholly dependent on the deceased passenger. Such dependency is in contravention to even par dependency of a minor brother under clause (ii) of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act.”
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
JANUARY 30, 2024 sp
Signature Not Verified
FAO 14/2015 Page 6 of 6
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:31.01.2024 20:38:46
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appellant who is a nephew by adoption can be considered a 'dependent' under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 to claim compensation for the death of his aunt.
Whether the impugned order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim suffers from illegality, perversity, or incorrect approach in law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishnakumar G. Vs. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶50
Krishnakumar G. Vs. Union of India (Kerala High Court)
Dhyan Singh and Another vs. Union of India and OthersDistinguished¶50
Dhyan Singh and Another vs. Union of India and Others (Punjab And Haryana High Court)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Pankaj Kataria & Ors.
Union of India
Dharmesh Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
