Foola Devi v. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Appeal No.341 of 2013 ===========================================================

1. Foola Devi, W/O Late Ramjee Singh, Resident Of Village- Kharaicha, P .SAgarhani, District- Bhojpur.

2. Foola Devi, W/O Late Ramjee Singh, Resident Of Village- Kharaicha, P .SAgarhani, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Appellants

Versus

The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amarnath Mishra, Advocate Mr. Anant Kumar-1, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-02-2015 Heard the parties.

2.

This is an Appeal preferred against Judgment/order dated 12th February 2013 in Claim Application No. 0A 00457/2002 by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Claim Tribunal") denying the claim preferred by the solitary appellant and solitary applicant before the Claim Tribunal seeking compensation against death of her husband said to have been taking place in an untoward incident on 11.10.2002.

3. It is noticed that the claim application was

Patna High Court MA No.341 of 2013 dt.04-02-2015 2/3 preferred before the Claim Tribunal in the individual capacity, but neither there is anything mentioned on the fact that it is being preferred for others also nor the same fact appears in the statement of the solitary applicant - cum - appellant in the affidavit. Though, there it is mention that her deceased husband left behind two more issues one son Raju Kumar Singh, aged 25 years and another daughter Sufalti Kumari, aged 18 years. Dependency certificate filed on 9th January 2013 before the Claim Tribunal in this case of the year 2002 and the same is not officially on the record as exhibit. When it was confronted, learned counsel for the appellants relies on the provisions as contemplated under section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as under : "125.

Application for compensation. - (1) An application for compensation under section 124 [or section 124-A] may be made to the Claims Tribunal- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury or suffered any loss, or (b) by any agent duly authorized by such person in this behalf, or (c) where such person is a minor, by his guardian, or (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

Patna High Court MA No.341 of 2013 dt.04-02-2015 3/3 compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every other dependant."

4. To avail the benefit of the provisions aforesaid, the appellant ought to have disclosed the fact with the application which was preferred not only for herself but for other heirs also. But there appears no explanation for non-impleading such heirs in the appeal also even either as co-appellant or respondent.

5. On these two grounds the Appeal appears not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Akhilesh Chandra, J) Ashwini/- U