THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.791 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the Award in O.A.A.No.334 of 2003, dated 05-06-2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondents on account of the death of their mother. The mother of the respondents Ganji Laxmamma, on 19-05- 2003 was traveling by train No.473 Tirupati – Kakinada passenger. While alighting the train at Nidubrolu Railway Station, she fell down and died as a result of sudden movement of the train. Therefore, the respondents filed the petition for compensation. The appellant disputed that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and there was no untoward incident. The deceased herself was negligent and hence the Railways are not responsible for the payment of the compensation. The Tribunal examined the matter with reference to the evidence adduced. In respect of issue No.1 viz., Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased, the Tribunal did not record a definite finding whether the claimants were dependents or not. The Tribunal, on the strength of the Certificate issued by Gattupala Gram Panchayat (Ex.A5) observed that the respondents are the dependents of the deceased. However, in the same breath it directed the respondents to file M.R.O. Certificate showing them as the dependents to receive the compensation. However, in respect of the other issues viz., Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, Whether the deceased died as a result of untoward incident; and Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation, the Tribunal held that the death of the deceased was due to the untoward incident and that she was a bona fide passenger. While so holding, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directed payment of the said amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of the M.R.O. Certificate showing the respondents as dependents. Aggrieved by the said order, the Railways has filed this appeal. Heard. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal should not have awarded compensation without recording a definite finding whether the claimants are the legal heirs/dependents. He further submitted that the findings on other issues should follow the finding on the issue No.1. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. I have considered the matter with reference to the material available on record. Although definite findings were recorded with reference to Issues 2, 3 and 4, no definite finding was recorded with reference to the dependency of the claimants. In view of the fact that the appellant disputed that the respondents are not the dependents of the deceased, Issue No.1 assumes importance and unless this issue is decided with certainity, the respondents are not entitled for any compensation. The issue relating to dependency is a jurisdictional fact upon which alone depends the entitlement of the respondents for compensation. The adjudication on this jurisdictional fact is a judicial function which the Tribunal alone is competent to adjudicate. The adjudicatory responsibility cannot be left at the hands of the appellant. This Court although granted stay of the Award conditionally to deposit half of the amount, did not in fact permit the withdrawal of the amount by the respondents, perhaps keeping in view the jurisdictional fact. Having regard to the same, I am of the view that the matter has to go back for reconsideration. The Tribunal has decided the issues 2, 3 and 4 conclusively based on record. These issues, therefore, do not require reconsideration. Issue No.1, since no definite conclusion was recorded, warrants adjudication as discussed above. Therefore, ends of justice will be met if the matter is remanded for reconsideration in respect of Issue No.1 alone. The Appeal is accordingly allowed and the Tribunal is directed to consider and decide the Issue No.1 after due notice to all the parties concerned as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The payment of compensation would eventually follow the findings on Issue No.1. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 26th February, 2010. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.791 of 2006 Date : 26-02-2010 Between : Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, S.C.Railways, Secunderabad .. Appellant/ Respondent And Ganji Radha and another .. Respondents/ Applicants