IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1207 of 2009. Date:25.08.2011 Between:- Shantanna and another ..Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 12.11.2009, in O.A.A.No.508 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of H.Ramulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 06.06.2005 was dismissed. 2. The appellants/applicants are the parents of the deceased. On 06.06.2005, the deceased, for returning to Wanaparti from Mahabubnagar, purchased a ticket bearing No.33963438 and was waiting at Mahabubnagar Station for the Secunderabad – Kurnool Passenger train. When there was a gale-storm, the asbestos sheet on the roof of the water cooler room on platform no.1 came off and fell down on the deceased as a result of which, he died on the spot within the station premises. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicants and stated that the applicants were put to proof that the incident fell under Section 123(c) or under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The incident itself was admitted but the applicants were also put to strict proof regarding their being dependents of the deceased. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident? and 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the appellants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A- 1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined but got marked Ex.R-1. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicants. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. 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 travelling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the deceased purchased a ticket and while he was waiting in the platform, because of violent gale, the asbestos sheets of water cooler fell on the deceased and died, and therefore, it is a violent attack, as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and grant compensation to the appellants. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that there was no untoward incident happened in this case and the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; that hence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. The factual matrix is not in dispute. As per Section 123(c) of the Act, untoward incident means commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; or the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or the indulging in rioting, shoot-put or arson, by any person in or 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. The deceased was a bona fide passenger having purchased a ticket and while he was waiting on the platform, the untoward incident happened. The asbestos sheet of the water cooler, due to severe gale, fell on the deceased and died. The police also registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, it is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. When the deceased was present in the precincts of the railway station, the incident has taken place. So, the death of the deceased due to fall of asbestos sheets on him on the platform is not in dispute. The police also conducted inquest under Ex.A-2. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died due to the head injury. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, also stated that the deceased died as a result of head injury. The fact that the deceased was waiting in the platform by purchasing a ticket is not denied or disputed. The death of the deceased, as evidenced by Exs.A-1 and A-2, is not in dispute. So, at the time of incident, the deceased was standing within the precincts of the railway station. He was waiting for a train to board after purchasing a ticket. In those circumstances, it is a violent attack within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization. The appellants are entitled to equal share. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 12.11.2009, in O.A.A.No.508 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _​__________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 25th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1207 of 2009. Date:25.08.2011 AMD