THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.888 OF 2009 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 05-06-2009 in O.A.A No.221 of 2005 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/- for the death Varasala Suresh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was allowed and directing the Railways to pay the said amount within 2 months from the date of order, failing which, the applicants shall be entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts are that on 08-03-2002 while the deceased was travelling from Pithapuram to Tuni by train and was standing near the door, due to heavy rush and sudden jerks and jolts, he fell down from the compartment and died. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that the claim does not fall within the provisions of Section 123 (c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and hence, it prayed to dismiss the application. 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 traveling from Pithapuram to Tuni on 08-03-2002? 3.Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4.To what relief? 5. During enquiry, on behalf of applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked. No evidence either oral and documentary was adduced on behalf of the Railways. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim application as stated above. 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 travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket, that no witnesses were examined to speak that the deceased purchased the ticket and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-applicants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train, that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased purchased a ticket. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘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 the train with a valid ticket. 11. Insofar as untoward incident is concerned, the dead body of the deceased was lying near the track. Ex.A5 death certificate shows that the deceased died in an untoward incident. A.W.2 was present at the time of inquest. Ex.A4, which is the final report filed by the police would go to show that while the deceased was travelling in a passenger train from Pithapuram to Tuni, he had fallen from the running train and died and it was a case of accidental death. Mere proof of accidental death by itself is not a ground for claiming compensation. It may be one of the grounds for claiming compensation. Initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket or pass as required under Section 124-A of the Act. Such evidence is lacking. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants stated that as some of the witnesses who were present at the time of incident were not available when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the applicants could not be in a position to examine them who accompanied the deceased to Railway Station and purchased the ticket. Therefore, he prays to remand the matter to give an opportunity to the applicants to substantiate their case with regard to the deceased travelling in a passenger train with valid ticket. Considering the fact that the deceased died in an untoward incident and some of the witnesses could not be traced when the claim application was pending, it is a fit case where the matter can be remanded to the Tribunal to give an opportunity to the applicants to let in evidence with regard to deceased travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket or pass. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to the applicants to produce necessary evidence within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and thereafter, the Tribunal is directed to give two months time to the Railways for adducing necessary evidence. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 25-08-2011 Hsd Note: Issue CC in one week