IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 973 OF 2009 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D S.Vanaja and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 973 of 2009 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 16.10.2008 in O.A.A.No.215 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Sangem Suresh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing the Railways to deposit the amount within thirty days from the date of the said order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of order till payment. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed claim application stating that on 05.07.2004, while the deceased was travelling in a train with a valid season pass bearing No.42610040 from Secunderabad to Kazipet, he had accidentally slipped from the running train at KM 238/32-34 between Bhongir and Pagidipally railway stations and died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that it is not a case of death due to accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was bona fide passenger as claimed and by which train? 3. Whether the incident was an untoward as alleged? 4. Whether the Applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.R.1 and R.2 were got marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that he died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and the applicants being the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation. Challenging the same, the Railways filed the present appeal. 8. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant/Railways contended that the deceased was having a season pass bearing No.42610040 valid from 06.06.2004 to 05.07.2004; that the accident occurred on 06.07.2004 and so the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket; that the applicants have not produced any certificate issued by competent authority to show that they are legal heirs and dependents of the deceased and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that Exs.A.2 and A.5 would clearly show the relationship of the applicants with the deceased and those documents have not been denied or disputed by the railways; that the untoward incident had happened on 05.07.2004, but the report was lodged on the next day and therefore, Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order 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 a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. As far as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train and died at KM 238/32-34 between Bhongir and Pagidipally railway stations on 05.07.2004 while travelling with a season ticket bearing No.42610040 from Secunderabad to Kazipet. The information about the death of the deceased was noticed on 06.07.2004. 12. With regard to second aspect whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not, it is the specific case of the applicants that the incident had taken place on 05.07.2004 and as on the date of incident the deceased was having a valid season pass to travel in a train carrying passengers. The time of untoward incident is the criterion for deciding the issue, but not the time of lodging complaint. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the railways that the applicants are not the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, the evidence of A.W.1 is very clear that she is the wife, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are children, and applicant Nos.4 and 5 are father and mother, of the deceased. Ex.A.2 is the inquest report which would clearly go to show that A.W.1 was examined by police during the course of inquest and her name was found in Column No.1 (B) of the inquest report. Similarly Ex.A.5 is the death certificate, which would clearly go to show that applicant No.4 is father of the deceased. Exs.A.2 and A.5 remained unchallenged. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and that order needs no interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 YVL