IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.230 OF 2008 Date:19.09.2011 Between:- Smt Ramzan ...Appellant And Union of India. ... Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 03.01.2008, in O.A.A.No.382 of 2003, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellant/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Indrana Pakeer Saheb (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the applicant, and respondent in the C.M.A. is the respondent, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed O.A.A. stating that on 02.07.2002 the deceased boarded train No.7616 Visakha Express in order to go from Vizianagaram to Secunderabad by purchasing II class journey ticket bearing No.04885176. While he was travelling in the said passenger train, he died due to Coronary Thrombosis (Heart attack). During the course of journey, the Government Railway Police seized the ticket. Hence, the clam application. 4. The respondent/ Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the deceased died due to heart attack, which is not in an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c ) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the application is maintainable under the provisions of Section 124-A of the Act? 2. Whether the death caused due to an heart suffered by the deceased during the train journey by Visakha Express will amount to an untoward incident? 3. Is Applicant entitled to any compensation? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A7 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the death of the deceased is not due to an untoward incident and the applicant is not entitled to any compensation. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is proper, correct and legal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that since the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died due to heart attack, the applicant is entitled to compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent/railways opposed the same on the ground that the case of the applicant does not fall within the meaning of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c ) of the Act and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. 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 the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the applicant was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The deceased died in a train due to heart attack. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket from Vizianagaram to Secunderabad. The question is when a person dies in a train due to heart attack travelling as a passenger, the dependents of such person are entitled to compensation. The word ‘untoward incident’ is defined under Section 123 (c ) of the Act, which reads as follows: “(1) (i) the commission of a trrorist act within the meaning of sub- section (1) of section (3) of the Terrorist and Distruptive Activite (Prevention) Act, 1987 ; or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot- out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” When a person dies due to heart attack, it does not fall under any one of the categories as provided under Section 123 (c) of the Act. Therefore, the case of the applicant does not fall under any one of the categories as provided under Section 123 (c ) of the Act. Admittedly, there is no untoward incident happened in the train carrying passengers, because the death of the deceased is not in an untoward incident, the question of granting compensation does not arise. As per Clause (e) proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, no compensation shall be payable by the Railway Administration, if the passengers dies or suffers injury due to any natural cause. Death due to heart attack is a natural cause. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence rightly dismissed the claim application 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. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 YVL