THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellants/ applicants aggrieved by the order, dated 01.02.2006 in O.A.A No.113 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the appellants/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Thiaga Rajan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2. The applicants filed the O.A.A. stating as follows. The deceased, who was working in Indian Army as Cook in Assam, was coming to his native place on 15 days’ leave from Assam. He was alleged to have traveled by train from Assam on 1.5.1999 and was to reach Tirupathi in the evening of 4.5.1999 or morning of 5.5.1999. Since he had not reached as scheduled, on information obtained from others and also from news papers, wife of the deceased (first applicant) and her father went to the accident spot at Renigunta railway station on 10.5.2009. But, by the time they reached there, dead body of the deceased had been disposed of by the railway police, Renigunta. On seeing photographs of the dead body and paper publication, the body of identified. Originally, it was stated that the applicant was informed by the Renigunta railway police that the deceased died of Ischemic heart disease and it is a natural death as in the certificate issued by GRP/RE, dated 25.10.1999. Despite the same, it is stated that death of the deceased was in an untoward incident that occurred due to commissions and omissions of the railways, which falls under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. 3. The railways resisted case of the applicants stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and since the cause of his death was due to heart disease, it is not covered under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and hence, the railways are not liable to pay compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues. 1) Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Thiagarajan ? 2) Whether on 14.11.2002, the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling from North Lakhanpur in Assam State to Tirupathi, started on 1.5.1999 ? 3) Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Renigunta ? 4) to what relief ? 5. On behalf of the applicants, applicant no.1 examined herself as A.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A12 were got marked. On behalf of the railways, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. The Claims Tribunal dealt with issue no.3 and came to conclusion that death of the deceased is a natural one and accordingly dismissed the Claim application. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that police in a hurried manner cremated the dead body of the deceased; that the deceased was hale and healthy and was murdered while he was on journey, and so, it is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/railways contended that since the death of the deceased is not in an untoward incident and it is a natural death, the railway administration is not liable to pay compensation, and the Claims Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, 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 traveling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. In such a case, the burden is on the respondent/railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the railways falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 11. Coming to aspect whether the deceased died in an untoward incident or not, the initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident. ‘Untoward incident’ has been defined in Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 which reads thus: “(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 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 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.” If the death of the deceased falls under any one of the above incidents, then it can be said to be in an untoward incident. Suppose, if a man dies due to heart attack while travelling in a passenger train, it cannot be said to be a death in an untoward incident. The doctor, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, categorically opined that the death appears to be due to Ischemic Heart Disease. It is clear from Ex.A1-final opinion of cause of death issued by S.V.Medical College, Tirupati on 28.9.1999 that the death of the deceased is due to Ischemic Heart Disease. Ex.A2 is the certificate issued by railway police dropping further action as the death of the deceased is a natural death. 12. Though the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was hale and healthy, there is no evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants to show that the deceased was hale and healthy with regard to condition of heart. Ex.A12 is the Certificate issued by Commanding Officer with regard to general health condition of the deceased. It would only go to show that the deceased was in good health when he proceeded on leave. That does not mean that a person may not get heart problem thereafter. There is no certificate produced by the applicants to show that the deceased was not suffering from any heart ailment while proceeding on leave. Therefore, Ex.A1- postmortem report, whose contents have not been denied or disputed and which has been filed by the applicants themselves, would clearly go to show that the death of the deceased is a natural one. Ex.A2, which has been filed by the applicants, has not been challenged. It would clearly go to show that the cause of death of the deceased appears to be due to Ischemic Heart Disease, but not on account of making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity or that he was murdered, while he was travelling in the passenger train. Therefore, the case of the railway administration falls under clause (c) of proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, whereunder railways have no liability for the death of the passenger due to any natural causes. Considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased is a natural one and dismissed the claim application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ___________ (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 12.09.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2006 Between: A.Geetha alias Indrani & others …Appellants And Union of India, rep. by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2006 12.09.2011