THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.612 of 2009 Date 16-11-2009 Between : Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. .. Appellant And M.Ramchander and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.612 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 17-08-2006, passed in O.A.A. No.323 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder the application filed by M.Ramchander and M.Kamala Bai claiming compensation for the death of their son-Ravi in untoward incident occurred on 03-10- 2001 came to be allowed. One Ravi boarded train No.164, Secunderabad-Warangal passenger at Secunderabad to go to Bhongir along with his friend Shiva Kumar. While so, he fell down at Moulali from train, which resulted in his instantaneous death. His parents, who figured as applicants in O.A.A. No.323 of 2001, identified the dead body at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad as that of their son. They presented an application being O.A.A.No.323 of 2001 under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, which has been impleaded as respondent therein filed counter resisting the claim of the applicants. In the counter, entitlement of the applicants to claim the compensation has been disputed so also the incident projected by the applicants as untoward incident to bring the claim within the ambit of Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased M.Ravi? (2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No.164 Secunderabad to Warangal passenger traveling from Secunderabad to Bhongir on 03-10-2001? (3) Whether the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Moulali Railway Station? (4) To what relief? During the course of enquiry before the Tribunal, applicant No.1 got himself examined as A.W.1 and marked five documents as Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A2 is the original ticket, Ex.A3 is the copy of the inquest report, Ex.A4 is the death report and Ex.A5 is the death certificate. The respondent has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. The Tribunal comprising two Members, one Judicial Member and another Technical Member, held on issue No.1 that as the applicants have not produced any legal heir certificate or family member certificate issued by the revenue authorities and they are required to produce the necessary certificate to claim themselves as dependants for the purpose of filing the claim. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal reads as hereunder: “The applicants 1 and 2 being parents have right to file a claim for recovery of compensation may prove that the deceased son died in the train accident which is an untoward incident. Under Section 123 (B) of Indian Railways Act the parents as dependants have right to file a claim on the death of an unmarried son. The applicants have not produced any legal heir certificate or family member certificate issued by the revenue authorities so, subject to production of the same it is observed that the applicants are dependants for the purpose of filing the claim.” The Members of the Tribunal had no unanimity with regard to the death of Ravi due to untoward incident. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Chairman of the Tribunal. The learned Chairman of the Tribunal agreed with the opinion of the Hon’ble Member (Judicial) and accordingly held that the death of Ravi is due to untoward incident. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed by the Chairman of the Tribunal, which reads as hereunder: “The matter was tried by the Bench and while Hon’ble Member (Judicial) was of the opinion that the incident is fully covered by the definition of untoward incident, Hon’ble Member (Technical) was of the view that this is a case where the deceased was trying to board the running train and in the process slipped and fell down and was run over by the train. There being difference of opinion between the Members, the matter was referred to me under Section 21 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act for decision in accordance with law. No witness has been produced by the railways. The railways have only relied upon the message sent by the Dy. Station Superintendent. In the absence of any person proving the message and having seen the deceased boarding the running train, I am unable to believe the said version. A categorical plea has been taken by the Respondent that the deceased was boarding the running train but they have failed to prove the same. As the respondent has failed to prove that the deceased was boarding the running train, a presumption is to be raised in favour of the Applicants that the deceased had not fallen in his attempt to board the running train and the matter is fully covered by the definition of untoward incident. I accordingly agree with the opinion of Hon’ble Member (Judicial) and award compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in terms of the order of Member (Judicial) and direct Respondent to pay the compensation to the Applicants in terms of the order of learned Member (Judicial) within 2 months from today, failing which the applicants will be entitled to the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order till payment.” Assailing the order, dated 17-08-2006, passed in O.A.A. No.323 of 2001, the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be admitted on 12-06-2009. An interim order also came to be passed on the even day in C.M.A. M.P. No.1092 of 2009. The applicants entered appearance and filed C.M.A. M.P. No.1930 of 2009 seeking permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant as per the orders, dated 12-06-2009, passed in C.M.A. M.P. No.1092 of 2009. When the permission petition has come up for consideration, both the counsel consented for disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself. Hence, heard the counsel appearing for parties in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the respondents/applicants failed to place any material to show that they are the dependents of the deceased, in which case they are not entitled to claim any compensation. He would further submit that the applicants did not choose to examine any eyewitness to the occurrence to show that the death of the deceased is in an untoward incident and in which case the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants submits that the Police seized Ex.A2 original ticket during the course of inquest and that itself suggest that he was a bona fide passenger. A further submission has been made that as per the information of the Gateman of the Gandhipuram, one person had fallen from the train and that he in turn reported the matter to the Station Master, Karepalli and then to GRP, Bhadrachalam to take further action in the matter. He would further submit that the appellant has not cross-examined A.W.1 with regard to the factual aspects spoken by him in the chief-examination and that there was no evidence to show that Ex.A2 – original ticket was not the actual journey ticket of the deceased and thereby the evidence of A.W.1 remained unchallenged. The very fact that Ex.A2 - original ticket has been seized from the possession of the deceased during the course of inquest suggests of his being a bona fide passenger on the train. The only one issue that falls for consideration is; whether the respondents/applicants are entitled to claim compensation for the death of Ravi? It is the version of the applicants that the deceased Ravi died in untoward incident that occurred on 03-10-2001 while he was traveling by passenger train No.164 from Secunderabad to Bhongir. The appellant disputed the fact of death of Ravi in untoward incident and thereby disowned its liability to pay any compensation. Indisputably, inquest was done on the dead body of Ravi and during the inquest Ex.A2 – original ticket was seized from his possession. Therefore, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death was during the course of travel. Hence, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation for the death of Ravi. The next question is whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Ravi. The learned Tribunal has taken proper care in adjudicating the issue with regard to the applicants’ entitlement as dependents of the deceased Ravi. The Judicial Member and Technical Member of the Tribunal have arrived at unanimous opinion that the applicants are to be declared as dependents on production of family member certificate or legal heir certificate issued by the revenue authorities. The findings of the Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances cannot be found to be unsustainable. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed confirming the order, dated 17-08-2006 in O.A.A. No.323 of 2001 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. No order as to costs. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. 16th November, 2009. skmr