THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.610 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 05.06.2006, in O.A.A No.256 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby the application filed by respondent No.1-applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of her husband Dhanaji Beradar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was allowed granting the compensation to the applicant on producing legal heir certificate obtained from the Revenue authorities.. 2. Respondent No.1-applicant filed the Original Application stating that on2 7.04.2002, while the deceased was travelling in train No.329 Pune-Hyderabad Passenger with ticket No.24978 from Gangapur to Hyderabad, he slipped and fell down from the train due to speed and jerks, sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 3. The Railways filed a written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 123 (c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and so the Railways are not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the claim application. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is also not in dispute. The deceased was having a valid ticket. The Tribunal granted Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation, subject to production of legal heir certificate from the revenue officials. Under Section 125 of the Act, only the dependants are entitled to claim compensation. The word ‘dependant’ is defined under Section 123 (b) of the Act, which reads as follows: “”Dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:- (i) The wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) The parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) A minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) The paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent No.1 died and her legal representative filed an application to bring her on record as respondent No.2 and the same was ordered. 8. In the impugned order, the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation until respondent No.1-applicant produced the legal heir and dependant certificate to show that she is entitled to the compensation. No evidence is produced to show that the applicants can file an application under Section 125 of the Act as dependants of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for disposal afresh by considering the legal heir and dependant certificate to be produced by respondent No.2, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also the evidence, if any, to be adduced by the Railway Administration. 9. Subject to the above directions, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J 13.10.2011 kdl