The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court in the case Sm. Mina vs Union of India observed and has held that a married daughter of a victim of a railway accident would also be entitled to compensation under the Railways Act even though she might not be dependent on him.
The bench comprising of Justice M.S. Jawalkar observed and has stated that if Section 123(b)(i) of the Railway Act is perused, it is the definition of dependant wherein daughter is included. There being no qualification either married or unmarried daughter. Thus, such a claimant is entitled for compensation.
It was observed that the court relied on the SC judgement in the case Manjiri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that the married daughter was entitled to compensation being a legal representative, and non-dependency cannot be a ground to deny her compensation.
In the present case, the petitioner Mina Shahare, a 45-year-old labourer from Gondia district of Maharashtra, had approached the HC against a 2013 order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing her claim for Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest from the date of accident.
As per the Shahare’s complaint, her father was travelling from Gondia to Wadsa by a passenger train in 2011 and due to the rush in the train he fell off and died instantly. However, as per the petition, he was standing near the door of the coach when the incident happened.
Further, the deceased was a ticketless traveller, and died due to his own negligence, the railways administration argued. It had been submitted that the alleged incident is not covered under Section 123 & 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 and it had been stated that Shahare was married and therefore she is not entitled to any compensation.
While relying on the SC judgement of Rina Devi, the bench held that the absence of a ticket cannot be a ground for denial of compensation and if the deceased died by falling off the train and his family cannot be expected to produce a ticket, the bench observed while relying on another judgement.
The bench observed while directing Railways to pay the petitioner compensation of Rs. 8 lakh that as such there cannot be said to be negligence on the part of deceased when it is strict liability of railway and in view of the referred judgments, it has to be inferred that deceased being a bonafide passenger and he fell down from running train was an untoward incident.
The post Bombay High Court: Married Daughter Of Deceased Also Entitled To Compensation Under Railways Act appeared first on The Daily Guardian.
