THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.700 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.06.2010 passed in O.A.A.No.517 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the claim petition filed by the applicants seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs for the death of one Smt. Panchula @ Panchamahal Yellamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 29.10.2005 while the deceased was travelling from Sanathnagar to Bijapur by Train No.330 passenger, she fell down at Sanathnagar railway station due to sudden movement of the train, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the applicants who are the son and widowed daughter of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4.00 Lakhs from the railways. 3 The Railways contested the said claim petition by filing written statement stating that there is no cause of action for the applicants, as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). It is further stated that the deceased was negligent in standing at the door of the compartment, and such rash and negligent act attracts the exception to Section 124-A of the Act, which exonerates the railways from paying compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.330 Passenger train, travelling from Sanathnagar to Bijapur on 29.10.2005? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, the 1st applicant himself was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the applicants. On the side of the respondent/Railways, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was marked. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the said petition on the ground that the applicants have not produced any legal heir certificate or the dependency certificate. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicants. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award impugned in this appeal is correct, legal and valid? 8 For the purpose of claiming compensation under section 124-A of the Act, it must be shown that the applicants must be the dependents of the deceased. The word ‘dependent’ is defined under section 123 of the Act, which means wife, husband, son and daughter and in case the deceased is unmarried, or is a minor, his parent. In view of the fact that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute, some indulgence can be shown to the applicants for production of the relevant document to show that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and dependents of the deceased as on the date of the untoward incident. 9 Therefore, the appeal is allowed the order impugned in this appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal directing the applicants to produce necessary and relevant documents to show that they are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also adduce necessary evidence with regard to the necessary ingredients under section 124-A of the Act. Thereafter, two months time shall be given to the Railway Administration for adducing their evidence, if any. Considering the aspect that there are lapses on the part of the applicants, they are not entitled for interest on the compensation if any granted from the date of application till the date of award. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 12.09.2011 Kvsn