IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.10-03-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.941 OF 2007 Between: Renimadugu Polaiah and two others. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.941 OF 2007 JUDGEMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) assailing order dated 19-04-2007, passed in O.A.A. No.37 of 2001, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 Read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act) on the file the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one R. Venkateswarlu (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) dismissing the claim. 2. The appellants herein are the applicants and the respondent herein is the respondent in O.A.A. No.37 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the applicants is as follows: They happened to be the children of the deceased. On the night of 03-08-2000, the deceased while returning from Jonnalagadda village to Anantaram, reached Guntur railway station and purchased a journey ticket to go to Markapuram from Guntur and aboarded in a second class general compartment of train No.7225 and while travelling the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the train while it was in motion at about 02-30 hours on 04-08- 2000 between K.M. No.133/13-14 posts in between Gajjalakonda – Markapuram Road railway stations due to high speed and jerks of the train and then he was dragged by the train to some distance, as a result of which he sustained severe multiples injuries and died on the spot. Further, the applicants being his children are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the pleas of the applicants. It is further the claim of the respondent that as per the Guard of the train No.7225 on 03-08-200 no untoward incident took place and there was neither alarm chain pulling nor any complaint about the accident and as such the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train. Ultimately, the respondent pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Renimadugu Venkateswarlu? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7225 Amaravati express travelling from Guntur to Markapuram Road on 03-08-2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at KM No.133/13- 14 between Gajjalkonda – Markapuram Road on 04-08- 2000? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got himself examined as AW.1 and also got examined one P. Venkateswarlu as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 which happened to be relevant copies of First Information Report, Inquest Report and Statement of one S. Rasool, Police certificate, Statement, Two Election identity cards, Case diary and Final Report. On behalf of the respondent nobody was examined and no documents were marked. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the plea of the applicants on the ground that relevant legal heir certificate was not produced before it without considering the other issues. 8. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the Tribunal should have given an opportunity to the applicants to produce necessary legal heir certificate and disposed of the matter on merits taking into consideration the entire evidence adduced and all the pleas taken. 9. Therefore, it is to be determined as to whether : 1) Whether the Tribunal erred in disposing of the matter just on the basis of issue No.1 without giving opportunity to the applicants to produce necessary legal heir certificate and without considering the other issues and the petition is tenable? 10. The Tribunal should have given an opportunity to the applicants to do so. Further, when necessary evidence was adduced, the Tribunal should have determined all the issues framed while disposing of the application. Hence, it is necessary to see that the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for taking necessary measures for finally disposing of the matter. 11. In the result, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to give an opportunity to the applicants to adduce necessary evidence to establish their relationship with the deceased and their claim and then give an opportunity to the respondent to adduce necessary evidence to rebut the claim of the applicants and substantiate its claim and then to dispose of the matter on the basis of the material available, no order as to costs. __________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date.10-03-2011. Dsh.