IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 673 OF 2006 Between : Budda Jangilaiah @ Jangaiah …APPELLANT A N D Union of India …RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 673 of 2006 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 05.06.2006 in O.A.A.No.360 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the appellant/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Budda Yellamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the applicant, and the respondent in the appeal 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 claim application stating that on 10.02.2003, the deceased along with her younger brother and three others boarded train No.526 passenger in order to go from Jadcherla to Shadnagar. While the deceased was alighting from the train at Shadnagar, she accidentally slipped and fell down from the train due to jerk and sudden start of the train, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The deceased travelled with a second class general ticket bearing No.3332703 from Jedcherla to Shadnagar, which was seized by Government Railway Police. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that as per the Message of the SM/SHNR, an old woman aged about 55 years while detraining from train No.526 passenger, slipped and fell down and run over; that the incident occurred due to negligent act of the deceased; that the journey ticket has not been produced that therefore, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent R.W.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant was not a dependent of the deceased, and accordingly, dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the applicant filed the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that the applicant was adopted son of the deceased and so, he is dependent on the deceased under Section 123 (b) of the Railway Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) and hence, he prays to remand the matter for the purpose of deciding whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and she died in an untoward incident. 9. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent/railways contended that adopted son of the deceased is not a dependent within the meaning of Section 123 (b) of the Act; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application as the applicant has not filed any dependency certificate and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. 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. 11. For claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, the applicant must be dependent on the deceased. The word ‘dependent’ has been defined under Section 123 (b) of the Act, which means wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case of deceased passenger is unmarried, or is a minor, his parent. The case of the applicant is that the deceased adopted him. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that an adopted son deemed to be a son under Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, ‘HAM Act’) and so, the applicant is entitled to compensation. 13. Section 12 of the HAM Act reads as follows: “Effects of adoption. An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family: Provided that- (a) the child cannot marry any person whom he or she could not have married if he or she had continued in the family of his or her birth; (b) any property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to vest in such person subject to the obligations, if any, attaching to the ownership of such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or her birth; (c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption.” The above provision makes it clear that there must be adoption of a person in terms of the provisions of HAM Act. If the procedure contemplated under HAM Act is followed, then there is no difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that an adopted son can become a son of a person who adopted him. In the claim application, the applicant has not stated that he was duly adopted by the deceased prior to his death. There is no averment in the application that on what date the applicant was adopted by the deceased and what are the formalities that were followed in adopting the applicant by the deceased. When there is no pleading, any amount of evidence is valueless. Though A.W.2 was examined to speak about adoption made by the deceased, that evidence and the documents Exs.A.2 to A.5 cannot be accepted in the absence of any specific pleading on that aspect. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that the applicant is the adopted son of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and that order needs no interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 YVL