IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1442 OF 2008 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Chavali Subba Lakshmi …RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1442 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 18.07.2008 in O.A.A.No.350 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of son of applicant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of the order till payment. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed the claim application stating that on 29.10.2005 while the deceased was travelling in a train No.415 Delta Fast Passenger, he accidentally slipped, fell down and died. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and his name was not found in the list of persons injured/died prepared by the Chief Medical Officer of the railways; that the applicants have not filed any legal heir or dependency certificate to show that the they are depending on the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased passenger? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of ill fated train No.415 Delta Fast passenger on 29.10.2005? 3. Whether the deceased was a victim of the train accident? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as prayed for? 5. To what relief? 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A12 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and died in an untoward incident. Challenging the same, the Railways filed the present appeal. 8. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant/Railways contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket; that identity of the dead body was not established and so, the railway administration is not liable to pay compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that in that incident the entire compartment in which the deceased was travelling was washed away in the waters; that therefore, there is possibility of availability of ticket with the deceased is very remote; that the relationship of the applicants with the deceased was not denied or disputed by the railways and hence, it prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. 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 a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. There is no dispute that the untoward incident had taken place when the deceased and several passengers were travelling in Delta passenger train. Two or three compartments were washed away in the floods as the bridge over river was collapsed and in such circumstances, the possibility of availability of ticket with the deceased is very remote. Since the entire compartment was washed away due to floods, there is every possibility of missing of the ticket. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. 12. The railway administration is not disputing that the applicants are dependents of the deceased. As on the disposal of the claim application, no such claim is made by any other person consequent on the death of the deceased. With regard to identity of the dead body, by seeing paper clipping, the dead body of the deceased was identified as that of the son of applicant No.1. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and that order needs no interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 YVL