HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.895 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 12.12.2005 passed in O.A.A.No.32 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. Respondents herein filed the application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of Railways Act for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Anarsingh Gopalsingh Sikalkar (hereinafter referred to as deceased). It was pleaded that the 1st respondent is the wife and respondents 2 and 3 are children of the deceased and he is said to have fallen down from UP Passenger train No.360 at Shankarpalli Railway Station on 07.12.1997. The appellant herein resisted the claim. Through the order under appeal, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation, which shall be deposited in the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of order, or else interest at 6% per annum shall be payable in case of delay in payment after the due date till payment. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal did not record any finding as to whether the respondents are the legal heirs of the deceased, Anarsingh Gopalsingh Sikalkar, at all and in that view of the matter, the order cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents-applicants submits that the Tribunal has taken proper care to ensure that the amount is paid only after the respondents satisfy the Court and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for. A claim for payment of compensation on account of death of a passenger can be made only by the legal heirs of the deceased. Before undertaking any enquiry into the matter, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the respondents-applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased passenger. In the instant case, the Tribunal did not undertake such an enquiry and on the other hand relegated that question to be considered at the time of payment of the amount. Issue No.1, touching on this aspect, was decided as under: Para 6:“There is no dispute that applicants 1 to 3 are the wife and children respectively of the deceased. There is no rival claim. Wife and children are the dependents under Section 123 of I.R. Act for filing the claim for the untoward incidents. Subject to producing certificate from M.R.O., the applicants are considered as dependents.” With all humility, it can be said that the course adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect. Unless a specific finding is recorded that respondents 1 to 3 were the legal heirs of the deceased passenger, it ought not to have undertaken the discussion, on the other issues. Further, the question of relegating the issue to be considered at a later stage does not arise. Once the claim petition was disposed of, it is not known as to how the Tribunal expected that the genuinity of the claim of respondents 1 to 3 that too, on production of a certificate from the M.R.O., would be undertaken. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the events that may be adduced by both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 10-08-2011 Gsn.