[Railways Act] Dependent’s LR Entitled To Compensation Even If Dependent Of Deceased Dies During Pendency Of Appeal: Bombay HC

The Bombay Excessive Courtroom has held that the authorized consultant of a dependent of a deceased passenger is entitled to obtain compensation below the Railways Act, 1989, even when the dependent dies throughout the pendency of proceedings. The Courtroom noticed that such compensation partakes the character of the deceased dependent’s property and doesn’t abate with their loss of life.

Justice N.J. Jamadar was deciding an enchantment filed by Smt. Sonal Vaibhav Sawant, whose father, Mahadev Tambe (since deceased), had initially approached the Railway Claims Tribunal searching for compensation below Part 124-A of the Railways Act following the loss of life of his 25-year-old son, Amit Tambe, in an alleged practice accident in 2011.

The Tribunal had rejected the declare, doubting whether or not Amit had fallen from a working practice, regardless of his possession of a legitimate ticket and id card. Throughout the pendency of the enchantment, Mahadev handed away, and his daughter Sonal, although not a dependent below the Act, sought to prosecute the enchantment in her capability as his authorized consultant.

Rejecting the Union’s objection to her locus, the Courtroom dominated:

“Sonal, in her capability because the authorized consultant of Mahadev, the deceased appellant, is entitled to prosecute the enchantment and obtain compensation which might have been paid to Mahadev because it partakes the character of the property of Mahadev.”

The Courtroom additionally held that the Tribunal had erred in rejecting the declare on speculative grounds, noting that the deceased was discovered with a legitimate season ticket and id card, and the Tribunal had gone past the pleadings and proof to invent a defence not raised by the Railway Administration.

The Courtroom famous that compensation below Part 124-A flows from strict legal responsibility and crystallizes on the loss of life of a bona fide passenger in an untoward incident. As soon as that legal responsibility is triggered, the compensation turns into a vested proper in favour of the dependent, which survives to the authorized consultant below common regulation.

“…the character of the legal responsibility of the railway administration, as soon as the first information are established…, the excellence dependent upon the result of the continuing earlier than the Tribunal, pales in significance. If the claimant was of the category the place he turns into depending on account of the connection, and was not required to additional show the precise dependency…, then the suitable to obtain compensation crystalizes as of the date of loss of life of the deceased passenger and the truth that the Tribunal unjustifiably rejected the declare, doesn’t defeat such crystalized or vested proper within the occasion the dependent/claimant dies after preferring an enchantment,” the Courtroom stated.

Accordingly, the Courtroom put aside the Tribunal’s resolution and directed the Union to pay ₹8,00,000 to Sonal.

Case Title: Smt. Sonal Vaibhav Sawant v. Union of India [First Appeal No. 50 of 2015]

Click Here To Read/Download Order