THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.215 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the applicant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 04-03-2005 in O.A.A No.141 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of his wife by name Katta Ravulamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that on 09-04-2002 the deceased was travelling from Sattenapalli to Nalgonda by train No.352 passenger with ticket bearing No.30072 and when the train was passing Miryalaguda Railway Station, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down between the platform and the train and died on the spot on account of injuries sustained by her. Hence, the claim application. 3. The Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, that the fall of the deceased from the train was on account of her own negligence and the injuries sustained by her resulting in her death were self inflicted injuries and the case is not covered under the definition of untoward incident. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased? 2.Whether on 09-04-2002 the deceased was a b o n a fide passenger of the train in question? 3.Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c ) of the Railways Act? 4. Relief and costs? 5. During enquiry, the applicant filed his chief-affidavit as A.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of Railways, chief- affidavit of Station Superintendent of Satennaplli was filed as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicant. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant contended that though the police during the course of inquest found the ticket, the attested copy of the inquest report has not been marked erroneously and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the Railways contended that the applicant failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train, that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. The applicant filed a legal heir certificate. All the legal heirs of the deceased have not been impleaded as parties. Similarly, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, copy of the F.I.R. and inquest report have not been marked on the ground that they are inadmissible in evidence. Since they are attested copies by a competent authority, they can be received as evidence. Similarly, post-mortem report was not filed to show that the death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained in railway accident. Therefore, it is a fit case for remand to the trial Court to enable the applicant to adduce necessary evidence to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident and the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to the applicant to adduce evidence within two months from today and thereafter, two months time is granted to the Railways to adduce evidence and thereafter the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 19-08-2011 Hsd