IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.952 of 2008. Date:17.08.2011 Between:- V.Jayalakshmi and others ..Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 13.07.2001, in O.A.A.No.199 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 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 V.Uma Maheswar Rao (hereinafater referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 19.03.1998 was dismissed. 2. The appellants/applicants are the wife, daughter and son of the deceased. The deceased was working under Cinema Hall Proprietor at Anakapalli. On 18.03.1998, on the instructions of his employer, he went to Tuni and handed over cash of Rs.10,000/- to one D.S.S.V.Narasimha Raju, younger brother of his employer, and stayed for the night in his house. On the next day morning, while returning, he was dropped by the said Raju at Tuni Railway Station. He purchased journey ticket to travel from Tuni to Anakapalli and boarded train No.7487 Tirumala Express in general compartment. While he was travelling in the train, at about 10.30 a.m., he accidentally fell down between Bayyavaram and Anakapalli Railway stations at KM No.744/26-28 from the running train and sustained multiple injuries and died instantaneously. He lost his journey ticket in that incident. 3. The respondent-Railways filed written statement and denied the accidental fall of the deceased from the train while travelling from Tuni to Anakapalli in train No.7487 Express. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger at the time of travelling. The Keyman reported about finding of a male dead body, aged about 40 years, by the said of track at KM.No.744/26-28 and the police conducted inquest over the dead body and conclusions were only on imaginary grounds. The deceased was not possessing journey ticket even though he was having currency notes and other documents in his pocket. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants proved that they are the only dependents of the deceased V.Umamaheswara Rao? 2. Whether the applicants further proved that the deceased -late V.Umamaheswara Rao was the bona fide passenger and travelled by the said train? 3. Whether the applicants proved that the deceased was a victim of untoward incident within the meaning of Sec.124A(c) of the Railways Act? 4. What amount of compensation, if any, the applicants are entitled to? 5. On behalf of the appellants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicants. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions 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. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions to the proviso under Section 124-A of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the inquest report would clearly go to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that the evidence of A.W.2 would clearly go to show that the deceased purchased a ticket to travel in a train; and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that the cause of death of the deceased has not been established, as the appellants failed to produce the post mortem report; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. No doubt, police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to know the apparent cause of death and the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, is the best person to speak about the nature of injuries and the cause of death of the deceased. That report has not been filed. The fact remains that the deceased died in an untoward incident, but the evidence of A.W.2 has not been properly appreciated to know whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not. Hence, it is a fit case where an opportunity can be given to the appellants to produce necessary evidence before the trial Court. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court giving two months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the appellants to produce necessary evidence and thereafter, two months time shall be given by the trial Court to the respondent to adduce its evidence. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.952 of 2008. Date:17.08.2011 AMD