THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.881 OF 2006 DATED: 29-03-2011. Between Union of India rep. by General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. … Appellant And 1.Smt. Sarali Sareen @ Sarali Murmu and others …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.881 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 21-06-2006 in O.A.A No.353 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of Mondal Saren (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed. 2. Brief facts are that the deceased along with his son boarded 2841 Coromandal Express at Kolkatha on 03-11-2003 to go to Chennai and from there to Bangalore. When the train after passing Singarayakonda Railway station, the deceased who was coming to his seat after attending calls of nature in the toilet, accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train due to jerks and speed of the train and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that as per the statement of the son of the deceased, the deceased was peeping out from the door, which is a negligent act on the part of the deceased, that the fall and consequent death is not an untoward incident and is due to self inflicted injury. It is also stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and therefore, the Railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2.Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train in question? 3.Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the running train as alleged? 4.To what relief? 5. During enquiry, son of the deceased himself was examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the Railways, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directed the Railways to pay the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of Dependency certificate issued by the concerned M.R.O. or other equivalent Revenue Official before making payment to the applicants or else it shall carry interest at 6% per annum till realization. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant- Railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, that the legal heir certificate of competent authority has not been filed to show that the applicants are legal heirs of the deceased and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-applicants contended that the copies of tickets obtained from the police have been marked and no objection has been taken, that after producing M.R.O. certificate with regard to legal heir of the deceased, 50% of the amount has been withdrawn by the applicants and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, 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 is a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. 11. Though learned standing counsel for the Railways vehemently contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train, at the same time Ex.A4, which is the copy of the ticket under which the deceased was travelling in the train, was not objected to for marking. Furthermore, if the Railway Administration wants to show that it is not a valid ticket, the concerned person must be examined to show that it is not a true or valid ticket. No such steps have been taken by the Railways Administration to disprove the ticket, which was marked as Ex.A4. Therefore, contention raised by the learned standing counsel for Railways that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the train, cannot be accepted and it is devoid of merit. 12. Coming to the death of the deceased, it is not in dispute that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him. In the inquest report, mediators opined that the apparent cause of the death of the deceased was due to falling from the running train. The doctor who conducted necropsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the death of the deceased and that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with valid ticket are established beyond preponderance of probability. Hence, the applicants are entitled for compensation. 13. It is further contended by the learned standing counsel for Railways that the certificate of the M.R.O. to show about the dependency has not been produced in spite of direction given by the trial Court. But according to the learned counsel for the respondents because M.R.O. certificate is produced, 50% of the amount has been released in terms of the decree. In view of rival submissions, it can be said that the applicants are entitled to withdraw remaining amount from the Tribunal after filing M.R.O. certificate only. 14. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 29-03-2011 Hsd