IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.885 of 2006. Date:17.08.2011 Between:- M.Karunakumari and others ..Appellants/ Applicants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 21.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.104 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of M.Sreenivasa Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 9/10.04.2000 was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: The appellants/applicants are the wife and parents of the deceased. The deceased went to his brother-in-law at Anaparthi to attend some personal work at Thagarapuvalasa village and accompanied by the said brother-in-law, he went to Anaparthi Railway Station in the intervening night of 9/10.04.2000. His brother- in-law purchased a ticket for the deceased to travel by train No.7008 Godavari Express from Anaparthi to Visakhapatnam and handed over the same along with Rs.450/-. The deceased was send off by his brother-in-law by the said train and while travelling so, the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train between Anaparthi and Bikkavolu railway stations, sustained injuries and died on the spot. The ticket was lost at the time of the accident. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicants and stated that the death of the deceased is not caused due to an accidental fall. As per the F.I.R., only a dead body was seen on the morning of 10.04.2000 and no untoward incident has been reported by the said train. In the absence of any journey ticket, the deceased was not a bona fi d e passenger and therefore, they have no liability to pay the compensation to the applicants. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Medapati Sreenivas Reddy? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7008 Godavari Express travelling from Anaparthy to Visakhapatnam on the intervening night of 9/10.4.2000 as alleged? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Anaparthy and Bikkavolu railway stations ? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicants. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions to Section 124- A of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that he purchased a ticket and handed over the same to the deceased to enable him to travel from Anaparthy to Visakhapatnam; that immediately, thereafter, after boarding the train, the deceased fell accidentally and died on the spot; that the evidence on record would clearly go to show that the deceased was dragged to an extent of 74 sleepers and the deceased died in an untoward incident; and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the applicants failed to establish that they are the legal representatives of the deceased; that no ticket was seized from the dead body of the deceased during the course of inquest; and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling in a train. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, found several injuries on the body, which appears to have been caused while falling from a running train. The deceased was dragged to an extent of 74 sleepers. The evidence of A.W.2 has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal for the reason that A.W.2 has categorically stated that he purchased a ticket for his brother-in-law and handed over the same to him (deceased) to enable him to travel from Anaparthy to Visakhapatnam. So, when the deceased was dragged to an extent of 74 sleepers, there is every possibility of loosing the ticket immediately after the incident. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the trial Court for the reason that the applicants failed to establish that they are the legal representatives of the deceased. In view of the fact that the legal representative certificate is issued by the Panchayat Secretary, it cannot be taken as evidence. Hence, an opportunity can be given to the appellants to produce necessary evidence before the trial Court. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court giving two months time to the appellants to produce necessary evidence from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, two months time shall be given by the trial Court to the respondent to adduce its evidence. 12. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 21.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.104 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.885 of 2006. Date:17.08.2011 AMD