PANKAJ KATARIA & ORS  Vs UNION OF INDIA -Judgment by Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 13th December 2023
Judgment pronounced on: 30th January 2024
+ FAO 14/2015
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

1. This judgment shall decide the present appeal filed by the
appellant/claimant under Section 231 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 19872 assailing the Impugned Order dated 17.07.2014 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi3, whereby the
claim application O.A. (IIu) No. 233/20134 titled as �Sh. Pankaj
Kataria Vs. Union of India”, filed under Section 16 read with Section
13 (1A) of the RCT Act, was dismissed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

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

2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the appellant / claimant that on
04.05.2013, Smt. Madhu Kataria (deceased herein) aged 58 years,

4 Claim Application

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:

3. During the course of proceedings before the learned RCT,
counsel for the respondent raised the issue of �adoption� contending
that adoption is not within the meaning of the term �dependant� as
defined under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act 19895 and that there
is no evidence on record to prove that Pankaj Kataria/appellant was
officially adopted as a son of the deceased. The appellant, on the other
hand, contended that they have filed all the documents including the

5 RA

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:
�Section 123(b) – �dependant” means any of the following relatives
of a deceased passenger, namely:-
(1) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased
passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent:
(2) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister,
widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child or a predeceased son,
if dependent wholly or partly on ; the deceased passenger:
(3) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependent
on the deceased passenger:
(4) the paternal grand parent wholly dependent on the deceased
passenger.�
4. The appellant further contended that the deceased died as a
spinster and adopted him as her son and that the deceased is not
survived by any other dependants except him. The learned RCT, on the
other hand, was in agreement with the submissions made by the
respondent in this regard. The relevant observations have been
reproduced below:
�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. On the basis of the preceding observations, the learned RCT
dismissed the claim application of the appellant/Pankaj Kataria in
terms of Rule 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,
1989.
6. The impugned order has been assailed inter alia on the grounds
that the appellant, though nephew of the deceased, was adopted as a
son and acted on her (deceased) as son/ nominee/ successor in bank
and the tribunal ought to have considered the spirit of the Will instead
of rejecting it. Further, the appellants allude to the aspect that there
existed a strong emotional bond between the appellant and the
deceased, which, the tribunal did not consider while passing the order,
and therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dismissing the claim
for compensation against the appellant, be set aside.
ANALYSIS & DECISION:

7. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by learned counsels for the rival parties at the Bar and on
perusal of the record, at the outset, this court finds that the present
appeal is bereft of any merits.
8. First things first, the appellant has not even lead any foundation
to his case as to how come he was an adopted son of the deceased.
There is no averment as to at what age, at what point of time and in
what manner or what ceremonies were performed for his adoption by
the deceased. There is no averment as to how the adoption was
affected in terms of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,

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:-

6 Act
7 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 4231
8 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 1307

�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.�

9. Further, reference can also be invited to the decision in Dhyan
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

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.�

10. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds that the
impugned judgment-cum-award dated 17.07.2014 passed by the
learned RCT, does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or
incorrect approach in law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
JANUARY 30, 2024
sp