IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 141 OF 2006 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Upparapalli Venkata Lakshmi …RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 141 of 2006 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 17.11.2005, in O.A.A.No.277 of 1999, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondent/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Upparapalli Suryanarayana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed directing the Railways to deposit the amount within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order till realization. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondent in the C.M.A. is the applicant, 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 the deceased purchased journey ticket in order to go from Tuni to Rajahmundry and boarded train No.7240 Visakhapatnam-Guntur Simhadri Express in II Class general compartment. When the deceased was travelling in the passenger train, he was hit by the door of the train due to jerk of the passenger train as a result, he slipped and fell down between Kadiyam and Rajahmundry railway Stations. While undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 22.09.1999. The ticket was lost at the time of accident along with the bag. Hence, the claim application. 4. Respondent/Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the case was fabricated by the applicant and deceased was not travelled in the passenger train nor he was 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 Upparapalli Suryanarayana? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7240 Visakhapatnam-Guntur Simhadri Express travelling from Tuni to Rajahmundry on 15.09.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train due to hit by the door between Kadiyam and Rajahmundry railway stations? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was got marked. C.W.1 was examined through the Court. 7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident of accidental fall and granted compensation. Aggrieved by the same, Railways filed the appeal. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is proper, legal and correct. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/railways contended that the incident had taken place on 15.09.1999, whereas the deceased died on 22.09.1999; that there is no nexus between the cause of injuries and death of the deceased as Doctor, who treated the deceased was not examined to show that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him in a train accident and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that 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 travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are proved, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the Railways fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 10. As far as untoward incident is concerned, the deceased had fallen from the passenger train, sustained injuries and died. The death is not instantaneous. One week after sustaining the injuries, the deceased died in the hospital. The dead body was not subjected to post-mortem examination. But, admittedly, deceased had taken treatment at Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. The Doctor, who examined the deceased, is a competent person to speak about the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. It is not known whether those injuries are having nexus in causing the death of the deceased. Unless the death of the deceased as a result of sustaining injuries in an untoward incident is established beyond preponderance of probability, the applicant is not entitled to compensation. Therefore, one more opportunity can be given to the applicant to lead evidence with regard to the cause of death of the deceased by examining the competent medical officer, who treated the deceased. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order, dated 17.11.2005 in O.A.A.No.277 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a liberty to the appellant/applicant to adduce necessary evidence within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter another two months’ time shall be given to the respondent/railways to adduce their evidence if any. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 30, 2011 YVL