IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.722 OF 2005 Date:23.03.2011 Between:- Sk.Mohiuddin and another ..Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, rep.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 04.07.2005, in O.A.A.No.210 of 1999 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 124-A 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 their unmarried son in a railway accident that took place on 07.07.1999 was dismissed on the ground that the witnesses, who speak about the untoward incident, were not examined and the witnesses who were travelling along with the deceased were not examined. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: On 07.07.1999, the deceased was travelling from Kachiguda to Mahabubnagar in a passenger train bearing No.525 by purchasing ticket No.00120 and accidentally fell from the train, sustained injuries and died. Basing on the report given by the Village Administrative Officer, police registered a case. He immediately went to the place where the dead body was lying and conducted inquest over the dead body. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicants and stated that the averments of the applicants are only surmises and not supported by any acceptable evidence and that no untoward incident of death was reported to the Station Superintendent, Mahabubnagar on 07.07.1999. No information was received either from the Guard or driver of any passenger train. Even assuming that the deceased had fallen down from the train, it is a case of trying to get down when it was passing through his village Yenugonda. The ticket is planted one. The deceased is not a bona fide passenger. Their enquiries revealed that the accident was caused by the criminal act and willful negligence of deceased. The case falls within the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Act and hence, the Railways is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the deceased Sk.Mosinuddin was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 2. Whether the deceased Shaik Mosinuddin died as a result of an untoward incident as defined in Sec.124-A of Railways Act? 3. Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased Sk.Mosinuddin? 4. To what amount, if any, the applicants are entitled to as compensation? 5. Relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and no documents are marked on its behalf. Exs.C-1 and C-2 are marked on behalf of the Court. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. 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 under Section 124-A of the Act. The original ticket has not been filed. How the applicants got the ticket is not stated. No doubt, the ticket number has been specifically mentioned in Column No.7 of the Inquest Report but at the same time, the applicants have not taken any steps to summon the original ticket from the concerned police. Similarly, no opportunity was given to the Railway Administration to show that the ticket was issued by the concerned authority to the deceased to travel from Kachiguda to Mahabubnagar. In such circumstances, it is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 04.07.2005, in O.A.A.No.210 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, and remanding the matter to the Tribunal to dispose of the O.A.A. afresh after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce necessary evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 6th April, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.722 OF 2005 Date:23.03.2011 AMD