IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.780 of 2006. Date:16.09.2011 Between:- G. Hanumappa (died) G. Veeresham (died) G. Yadamma and another ..Appellants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Eastern Railways, Secunderabad. .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.780 of 2006. JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 19.10.2005, in O.A.A.No.170 of 1998 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 Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with 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/- consequent on the death of G.Venkatamma (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 26.07.1998, was dismissed. 2. The applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that the deceased while travelling by Train No.7429 Hyderabad – Tirupathi express in 2nd class general compartment on 26.7.1998 from Hyderabad to Tandur, accidentally fell down from the said train between Begumpet and Sanathnagar Railway station, sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. 3. The respondent/Railways denied the case of the applicant and stated that the death may be due to any other reason, since the body was found between up and down lines of Fathenagar Gate where there is no gravel or sleepers, that there is no injury on the body as shown in the Inquest report and therefore, the fall could not be due to any injuries sustained from the alleged fall from the train. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased G. Venkatamma? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7429 Hyderabad – Tirupathi Rayalaseema Express, travelling from Hyderabad to Tandur on 26.7.1998 as alleged? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief? 5. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, dismissed the application of the applicants. Challenging the same, the applicants filed this appeal. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident and that he was a passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket and hence he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent (Railways) contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that he was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application of the applicants and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. Though it is stated that the applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased, no evidence was adduced to show that they are the dependents on the earnings of the deceased. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal has rightly held that the applicants are not the dependents of the deceased. 10. 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 with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled for 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 bonafide passenger or their case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. With regard to the untoward incident, though it is stated by A.W.1 that the deceased died in untoward incident, the identity of the deceased has not been established. The police who conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased opined that an unidentified person had fallen from the train. Ex.A.1 which is the First Information Report would clearly go to show that the identity of the person who had fallen from the passenger train No.7429 has not been established. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident. More over the applicants have not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in the passenger train. Admittedly A.W.1 is not an eye witness to the aspect of deceased purchasing ticket. From the unidentified body, the police did not seize any ticket so as to come to the conclusion that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Further more, applicants failed to establish that they are legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, it can be said that the Tribunal has rightly held that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation and the said order needs no interference by this court. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 16th September, 2011 Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.780 of 2006 Date:16.09.2011 Gk.