THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT Rev.CMP No.12785 of 2002 & Rev.CMP No.1597 of 2013 and C.M.A.No.3195 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) O.A.A.No.109 of 1999 was filed by Sri Enigala Komuraiah before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench claiming compensation on account of the death of his son, by name Rajender, in an untoward incident on 10.04.1999 at Sirpur Kaghaznagar Railway Station. It was pleaded that the claimant, his wife and Rajender were travelling in a passenger train and while in train, Rajender died on account of an untoward incident. The O.A.A. was opposed by the appellant stating that the deceased died on account of his own negligent acts and in spite of being warned by the Guard of the train, he tried to board a moving train and in the process, he came under the wheels. Through its order, dated 11.09.2001, the Tribunal held that the deceased died on account of an untoward incident and awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant filed C.M.A.No.3195 of 2001 against the said award. Through order, dated 04.02.2002, a Division Bench of this Court partly allowed the C.M.A. and reduced the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- by recording a finding to the effect that the deceased died on account of self-inflicted injury. The appellant filed Rev.C.M.P.No.12785 of 2002 stating inter alia that once a finding is recorded by this Court to the effect that the death was on account of the self-inflicted injury, the Railways cannot be saddled the liability at all. Specific reference is made to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The sole claimant in the O.A.A. is said to have died on 07.09.2001 just four days before the Tribunal passed the award on 11.09.2001. Stating that the appeal itself was filed against a dead person and that no effort was made by the appellant to bring them on record, the legal representatives of the deceased Komuraiah filed Rev. CMP (SR) No.1376 of 2003 with a prayer to review the order, dated 04.02.2002. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. This is a typical case, which has presented more legal issues than one. The first is that the sole claimant in the O.A.A. died on 07.09.2009 after the matter was reserved for orders by the Tribunal and the award was passed on 11.09.2001. Though by the time the award was passed, the sole claimant was not alive, the award does not suffer from infirmity and the situation is saved by order 22 Rule 6 C.P.C. It may be true that the appellant i.e. Railways was not aware of the death of the sole claimant by the time it filed the appeal. The fact, however, remains that the appeal was presented against a dead person and by the time the order was passed, it was not even mentioned that either the respondent has been served or remained ex parte. The result is that the order, dated 11.09.2001, was passed against a dead person. Serious infirmity with which the appeal suffered at the inception has since been cured with the legal representatives of the sole respondent coming on record. Therefore, it needs to be disposed of on merits. Hence, the applications are ordered. The order, dated 04.02.2002, is recalled and in its place, the following order is passed: The claim was presented on account of the death of Rajender in an untoward incident. The Tribunal has taken note of all the facts pleaded by the claimant as well as Railways. The undisputed facts are that the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket and he died in the course of his travel. The whole controversy was as to whether the death of the deceased was on account of any untoward incident or is the result of self-inflicted injury. If it is the former, the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- deserves to be awarded and if it is the latter, no compensation can be awarded at all. In its defence, the appellant did not state that the deceased has received any self-inflicted injury. Their effort was only to demonstrate that every precaution was taken to ensure that the passenger does not enter a moving train. Except the evidence of R.W.1 i.e. the Guard, no other evidence was adduced in this behalf. Be that as it may, the contents of the First Information Report clearly disclosed that the deceased was very much in the train before he has fallen down. The theory of self-inflicted injury does not fit into a case where the passenger is very much in the train. The only exception can be, when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court, that the passenger so travelling has determined to commit suicide. This is not the case here. We do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J ______________________ S.V. BHATT,J Dt:13.08.2013 kdl …. CMA MP No.1337 of 2013 This application is filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 305 days in filing the review petition. It is represented that the petitioners herein were not aware of the filing of the appeal or the order passed therein, since the appeal itself was filed against a dead person. This assertion of the petitioners is not refuted by the respondent. We are satisfied with the grounds pleaded for condonation of delay. Hence, the application is ordered. CMA MP No.1224 of 2003 CMA No.3195 of 2001 is filed against the order, dated 11.09.2001, in O.A.A.No.109 of 1999, dated 11.09.2012, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the sole respondent, namely Komuraiah. The petitioners filed an application to review the order, dated 04.02.2002, and in that context it became necessary for them to come on record. The application is not seriously opposed and it is accordingly ordered.