THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A No. 2 OF 2010 Date: 24-08-2011 Between The Union of India, rep., by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …..Appellant And Smt. P. Naga Malleshwaramma …..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.M.A No. 2 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), is directed against the order, dated 28-10-2009 passed in O.A.A No. 196 of 2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondent claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one P. Ravi Kumar, who is her son, was allowed and interest was granted at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of order and at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of order till the date of actual payment. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the C.M.A may be stated as under: The respondent filed the said O.A.A under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- stating that her son P. Ravi Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) died of an untoward incident on 02-05-2007 at Duggirala Station. She stated that her son had a ticket for journey from Duggirala to Krishna Canal Junction and while he was waiting for the train in the evening, two unknown miscreants attacked him and killed him in the station premises and that the original ticket was with the police. 3. The appellant – railways denied the averments made in the application by way of filing a written statement stating that the death of the son of the respondent was a premeditated murder by people who nursed a grudge against his family and, therefore, though the incident occurred in the station premises, it does not come within the meaning of ‘untoward incident’ and the railways are not liable to pay compensation. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the applicant was dependent of the deceased? 2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident: and 4) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the respondent, she examined herself as AW 1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the appellant, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R-1 was marked. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and met his death on account of an untoward event and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and accordingly allowed the O.A.A. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – railways contended that the murder of the deceased on the platform of the railway station was a premeditated one and, therefore, it is not an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. Hence, the respondent is not entitled for the compensation. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that since on the platform of the railway station the deceased was murdered which is a violent act, it comes within the meaning of ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123 (c) (1) (ii) of the Act and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation to the respondent. 9. 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 an untoward incident had 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. Untoward incident includes making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity. If the two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the appellant-railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimant falls under any one of the clauses mentioned under Section 124-A of the Act. 10. The factual matrix of the case is not in dispute. An attack was made on the deceased by the assailants after he purchased ticket to travel in a passenger train. Therefore, he was a bona fide passenger entered into the platform so as to undertake the journey. At that point of time, he was murdered. The police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and after inquest, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. In the inquest report, it was stated that the deceased died as a result of the injuries. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination also opined that the deceased died due to injuries. Ex.R-1 which is the message sent to the higher officials of the railways would go to show that the incident had taken place on the platform of the railway station. The deceased was a bona fide passenger and was attacked by some persons as a result of which he died. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. If any one of the defences of the railway administration falls under any one of the clauses of the above proviso, then only the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. Making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity comes within the meaning of ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123 (c) (1) (ii) of the Act and therefore, it is an untoward incident happened within the precincts of railway station and the deceased was having a valid ticket to board the passenger train. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K.C. BHANU, J 24-08-2011 ks