HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.798 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (for short ‘the Act’), is directed against an order dated 19/12/2003 made in O.A.A.No.136 of 2001 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder the claim petition filed by the appellants seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of husband of the first appellant in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train at Sattenapalli while traveling from Guntur to Sattenapalli on the intervening night 09/10-05-2001 was dismissed. It was the case of the appellants/applicants that the deceased was doing business in paddy at Sattenapalli and that on 09/05/2001, he went to Guntur on business work and went to his cousin’s house at Guntur. After taking dinner at cousin’s house, he along with his cousin went to Guntur Railway Station and he purchased ticket bearing No.23394526 from Guntur to Sattenapalli and boarded Train No.7053 Express and that his cousin seen him off, and when the train reaching Sattenapalli Railway Station at about 1.30 AM, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down due to heavy rush in the general compartment and came under the train and died on the spot. The respondent filed its counter denying the allegations stating that there is no cause of action as the claim does not fall under the purview of Section 124 A and 123 (c) of Railways Act and denied that the deceased boarded train at Guntur to go to Sattenapalli and that his cousin seen him off at the Station and that the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally at Railway Station. It was contended that the Keyman K.Abraham found a male unknown dead body at 7.00 hrs lying o the south end of the platform and informed to Station Superintendent, who in turn informed to Govt.Railway Police, Guntur. It is further denied that the applicants are legal heirs of the deceased. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased B.Harirama Prasada Rao? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No.7053 express, traveling from Guntur to Sattenapalli on the intervening night of 9/10.5.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Sattenapalli railway station? 4. To what relief? On issue No.1, the Tribunal held that no evidence was adduced by the applicants to show that they are the dependents of the deceased. The burden lies on the applicants to prove that they are dependants of the deceased and entitle to claim compensation and since there was no evidence on behalf of the applicants, the issue was held against the appellants/applicants. Likewise, issue nos.2 and 3 were also held against the appellants/applicants since no evidence was let in. Ofcourse in this case, no evidence was let in by both the parties. But it could not have been said that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger atleast. In the inquest report in Ex.A-2, clause 4 says that a valid ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased. Therefore, it appears prima-facie that he was a bona fide passenger. This was also not taken into consideration. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants states that the Advocate who was appearing in the matter hales from Chilakuluripeta and during those days, the Tribunal was not sitting regularly since no regular members were available. Therefore, appropriate opportunity was not given to the appellants/applicants to adduce evidence. It is also a case where even the respondents have not adduced any evidence. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that in a case of this nature, it needs that the appellants/applicants be given an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove their case, if any. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The order made in O.A.A.No.16 of 2001 dated 19/12/2003 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Railways Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. The Tribunal shall decide the matter afresh, after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 30th July, 2010 NOTE: Furnish C.C. by two weeks. B/o. SKM