IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1340 of 2008. Date:07.09.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Khadeerunnisa Begum and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 20.06.2008, in O.A.A.No.130 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with 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 Mohd.Rasool (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 14.12.2001 was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the wife and minor children of the deceased. On 14.12.2001, while the deceased was travelling by train No.571 passenger from Secunderabad to Mahbubnagar, accidentally fell down between Umdanagar-Budwel Railway Stations at Km.No.25/13-14 resulting in his death on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the incident does not come under the provisions of Section 124-A of the Act and put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased under Section 123(b) of the Act, and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Mohd.Rasool? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.571 passenger travelling from Secunderabad to Mahbubnagar on 14.12.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Umdanagar and Budvel Railway Stations? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and on behalf of the railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. No documents were marked on either side. The Tribunal summoned the Government Railway Police, Kachiguda to produce the documents and marked as Exs.C-1 to C-3/5. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that there is no proof to show that the applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased; that the death of the deceased is not established; that the inquest report, post mortem report and the ticket are not being marked and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that due to inadvertence, the certified copies of inquest report and post mortem report are not being marked and an opportunity may be given to the applicants to adduce necessary evidence and to produce the legal heir certificate and hence, he prays to remand the matter. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements 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 with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, they have to prove that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he was travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. Unless their burden is discharged, they are not entitled to any compensation. The applicants must also establish that they are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased person. They have not produced any document to show that they are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased. They have also not produced inquest report and post mortem report to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident. Applicants are illiterates. They were not properly advised to bring the necessary documents to prove their case. Railways Act is a social welfare legislation. Considering these aspects, one opportunity can be given to the applicants so that they can adduce necessary evidence before the trial Court. For not giving proper advice to the applicants, they cannot be made to suffer. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where the matter can be remanded to the trial Court to enable the applicants to produce all the necessary evidence to substantiate their case. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court giving two months time to the applicants from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to adduce necessary evidence before the Tribunal to prove their case and thereafter, two months time shall be given by the trial Court to the railway administration to adduce its evidence. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 07th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1340 OF 2008 Date:07.09.2011 AMD