THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.394 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Appellants- applicants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 11-08-2009 in O.A.A No.94 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of Bolla Madhu Maheswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that on 23-01-2005 the deceased while traveling from Secunderabad to Rajahmundry by train No.7048, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at Godavari Railway Station and died on the spot. It is stated that he had a valid ticket No.25018300 worth Rs.238/-. Hence, the claim application. 3. The Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that the enquiry revealed that the train No.7048 did not have a scheduled stop at Godavari Station. As the train was passing the station, a person jumped out of the train and got up without injury, but a second person jumped out of the train and got caught between the coach and platform. Hence, this is a self-inflicted injury for which the Railways are not liable to pay compensation. With regard to the bona fides of the deceased as a legitimate passenger and the applicants as dependents of the deceased, the same have to be proved by the applicants through production of documents. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 7. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. But, still the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the applicants did not produce certificate from the competent authority with regard to their dependency. Therefore, one more opportunity can be given to the applicants to produce certificate from the competent authority with regard to their dependency. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal giving opportunity to the applicants to produce necessary evidence with regard to dependency within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, two months time shall be given to the Railways to enable it to adduce rebuttal evidence, if any. No costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 13-10-2011 Hsd