HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.15 OF 2009 Dated 01-03-2011 Between: The Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. …Appellant. And: Bade Koteswari and others …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.15 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”), against order dated 30-9-2008 passed in O.A.A.No.171 of 2004 filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on death of one B.Nageswararao (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) allowing the claim. 2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the application. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The applicants are wife, daughters and son of the deceased. On 1-6-2004, the deceased aboarded II Class General compartment in train No.7406 Hyderabad-Tirupathi Krishna Express at Bonakalu railway stations holding pass No.923115 issued on 13-2-2004 being railway employee and got down at Chinaganjam railway station and while boarding the train, he fell down and received injuries by reason of which he died. Further, he being a bona fide passenger of the train, the applicants who happened to be his legal heirs and his dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that the applicants should prove that they are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased and he was not holding valid pass to travel by the train and ultimately, the respondents pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal. 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train No.7406 Krishna Express travelling from Bonakalu to Singarayakonda on 1-6-2004? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the 1st of them got herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 which are relevant copies of First Information Report, inquest report and P.M.E. report and original Death Certificate. Further on behalf of the respondents, the guard of the train was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 and R.2 which are S.M’s Message and Guard’s Message. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held all the issues in favour of the applicants and allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been preferred by the respondent. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that no Legal Heir Certificate or Dependent Certificate was produced by the applicants to establish their relationship with the deceased and further, the pass given to the deceased was permissible for only one journey though it was valid up to 12-6-2004 and the contents of the pass are not established by producing before the Court by the applicants and hence, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for necessary reconsideration. 9. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that A.W.1 was not cross- examined with regard to their relationship with the deceased and further even as per the record of the railways, the pass was valid upto 12-6-2004 and as per the Inquest Report, the applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased and therefore, at this stage, the respondent’s claim is not tenable. 10. Basing on the inquest report alone, it is difficult to say that the applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased and further consideration of it is needed. Further when the applicants gave the pass number as that of the deceased, it is for the respondents to produce necessary documentary evidence in order to disprove it and uphold its claim. Therefore, it is necessary to remand the matter to the Tribunal to establish that two points giving opportunity to both parties to adduce necessary evidence. 11. In the result, the appeal is disposed of and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of it giving opportunity to the applicants to adduce necessary documentary evidence to establish their relationship with the deceased and to give opportunity to the respondent and to adduce evidence about the validity of the pass. Further, as the matter has become old, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 12. Further it is represented that as per the directions of this Court on 21-1-2009 in C.M.A.M.P.No.31 of 2009, half of the amount was deposited before the Tribunal and the same was withdrawn by the applicants as directed by this Court on 1.4.2009 in C.M.A.M.P.No.359 of 2009 about which further orders are to be passed subject to final decision in the matter. ___________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 01-03-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.15 OF 2009 Dated 01-03-2011