IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.918 of 2008. Date:17.08.2011 Between:- Ch.Ramaiah Goud and another ..Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 22.12.2005, in O.A.A.No.41 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Ch.Rosaiah Goud (hereinafater referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 23.05.1999 was dismissed. 2. The appellants/applicants are the sons of the deceased. On 23.05.1999, while the deceased was traveling from Gollaguda to Lingampally in Aurangabad Passenger Train bearing No.350, he accidentally slipped and fell down at Lingampally Railway Station and died. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicants and stated that there is no untoward incident reported by the said train. As per the First Information Report, the dead body of a male person was seen by the Driver of train No.1019 Konark Express on 23.05.1999 at Lingampally Station and while the train was passing through the station at 6.50 hours, he reported to Assistant Station Master on duty at Lingampally. Train No.350 Aurangabad-Kacheguda Passenger arrived at 8.10 hours and left at 8.12 hours without any incident. The facts clearly reveal that the dead body was already sighted by the Driver of Konark Express around 6.50 hours which happened by train No.350 by which the deceased is stated to be travelled. The tickets have been planted and that no post mortem examination report has been filed and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The post mortem examination report has not been filed so as to suppress the information and in the circumstances, the Railways are not liable for payment any compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Chilukuri Rosaiah Goud? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.350 Aurangabad passenger traveling from Gollaguda to Lingampally on 23.05.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Lingampally railway station? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the appellants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A- 1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicants. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions to the proviso under Section 124-A of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track; that at the time of inquest, the ticket was found and therefore, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket and his death was on account of an untoward incident; and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that the inquest report would clearly go to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and some unknown train hit the deceased; that therefore, it is not a case of untoward incident; that the appellants have not filed any post mortem report to show that the injuries were caused by fall from a running train; that the appellants have also not filed any certificate to show that they are the legal representatives of the deceased; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. The appellants have not filed any post mortem report to show that the injuries can be caused by fall from a running train. The appellants have also not produced any certificate to show that they are the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, unless it is established that the appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased, the question of granting compensation to the appellants does not arise. Hence, it is a fit case where an opportunity can be given to the appellants to produce necessary evidence before the trial Court. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court giving two months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the appellants to produce necessary evidence and thereafter, two months time shall be given by the trial Court to the respondent to adduce its evidence. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.918 of 2008. Date:17.08.2011 AMD