IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.416 of 2010 Between: B.Chinnamma and 2 others ..... APPELLANTS And Union of India rep.by its General Manager, East Coast Railways, Bhubaneshwar .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.416 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 20.01.2010, in O.A.A.No.339 of 2005 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 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 B.Appanna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 07.11.2004 was dismissed. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows: The applicants filed the claim application stating that the applicants are the wife and children of the deceased; that on 07.11.2004, the deceased fell down from Train No.472 Rayagada- Vijayawada passenger at Kuneru station yard and sustained grievous injuries on the head and died as a consequence in K.G.Hospital on 12.11.2004. Being dependents of the deceased, the applicants claimed Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation. 4. The respondent-Railways filed a written statement denying the claim, but admitted that after the train had passed Kuneru on 07.11.2004, some one informed the station that someone traveling on footboard of the train had fallen from the train, and the Dy.SS issued a memo to GRPS/Parvathipuram and sent the injured to Parvathipuram Government Hospital from there he was shifted to K.G.Hospital where he died on 12.11.2004. The respondent further stated that it could not be established that the injured had any journey ticket on him and the ticket number quoted in the claim application was sold at 7.30 hours for train No.229, and not for train No.472. The respondent stated that the deceased died on account of his own criminal actions, and also called for proof of the various averments in the application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an accident in that train? and 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. 7. After considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed by the claimants. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the applicants are the dependents of the deceased, and Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2-Inquest Report would clearly go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order and award compensation. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that the applicants failed to produce any certificate issued by the competent authority to show that they are dependents of the deceased; that they have also not produced any documentary evidence to prove that they are legal heirs and dependents of the deceased; that no ticket was seized during course of investigation and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and prays to sustain the same. 11. 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, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger traveling in a train or the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. As seen from the record, the parents of the deceased were not impleaded as parties. AW 1 stated that the parents of the deceased are alive and they are also dependents of the deceased. When the parents of the deceased have not cooperated the applicants, the applicants ought to have impleaded them as respondents in the claim application. It is stated that the 1st claimant is the second wife of the deceased, 2nd claimant is her son born to her, and 3rd claimant is the son of deceased, born through his first wife. There was no evidence to show that the deceased was legally divorced from his first wife. Unless these aspects are established and proved, the applicants are not entitled to claim any compensation. 13. There must be evidence to show that Applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, and prior to her marriage, the deceased gave divorce to his first wife. It is also to be established that the parents of the deceased have not interested to claim any compensation, though they are dependents of the deceased, by impleading them either as applicants or respondents to the claim application. More so, the applicants have not produced the ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers. It may not be possible for the police to note down the number of the ticket in the inquest report. 14. In view of the fact that the applicants have not adduced any necessary and relevant evidence for the purpose of deciding the issues, I deem it appropriate to give an opportunity to the applicants to adduce necessary evidence to establish their case. Therefore, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, after considering the oral and documentary evidence that may be adduced by either side. The applicants are directed to adduce necessary and relevant evidence before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and thereafter, two months time shall be given to the respondent-Railways to adduce their evidence, if any. The CMA is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ K.C.BHANU,J Dated: 30.09.2011 Dsr