IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.219 OF 2008 Date:13.09.2011 Between:- Union of India. ...Appellant And Smt Thejavath Chanda and another. ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.219 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 23.11.2007, in O.A.A.No.118 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Nunavath Thavu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the amount within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of the order till realization. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. are the applicnats, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed O.A.A. stating that on 15.04.2002 while the deceased holding a second class general ticket bearing No.68750 was getting into Pushpull train in order to go from Garla to Khammam, accidentally slipped and fell down between track and platform due to sudden jerk of the passenger train, sustained severe injuries and died. Applicant No.2 died on 30.12.2004 during the pendency of the application. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/ Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the dead body was found on the platform near the Parcel office; that no accidental fall was reported at Garla Railway Station on 15.04.2002 either by Push-Pull train or by any other train; that there was no eye witness to the incident; that it is not a case of accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident; therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation, and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased? 2. Whether on 15.04.2002 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 ( c) of the Railways Act? 4. Relief and costs?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were got marked. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim application holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that he died in an untoward incident; and that the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the respondent/railways. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/railways contended that the death of the deceased has not been established in view of the fact that the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, was not examined as a witness and the Post-mortem Report was not marked; that the respondents/applicants have not shown to be the legal heirs of the deceased and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that from A.W.1’s evidence is very clear that she and another applicant are legal heirs of the deceased; that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train on day of incident; that police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination; that therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved by the applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. The Railway Administration wanted to show that the case fall under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, then the burden is on it to show that the case attracts one of the exceptions. 11. As far as untoward incident is concerned, the respondents/applicants must prove that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 12. The word ‘untoward’ is defined under Section 123 ( c) of the Act, reads as follows: “(i) The commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub- section (1) of section (3) of the Terrorist and Distruptive Activite (Prevention) Act, 1987 ; or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot- out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, loak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers).” 13. Unless the death of the deceased falls under any of the above categories, the applicants are not entitled to compensation. Neither the Post mortem Certificate as to the cause of the death of the deceased is produced nor the Doctor, who conducted post mortem of the body of the deceased was examined, to speak about the cause of the death. Furthermore, the applicants have not produced any dependency certificate so as to show that they are the dependents on the earnings of the deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity can be given to the respondents/applicants to adduce necessary evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train; that he died in an untoward incident and the applicants are dependents on the deceased. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order, dated 23.11.2007 in O.A.A.No.118 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad and remanding the matter to the Tribunal with liberty to the respondents/applicants to produce necessary documents or evidence before the Tribunal within such period that may be granted by the Tribunal and thereafter, two months’ time shall be given to the appellant/railways to adduce their evidence, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 YVL