The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal v. Railways filed a written statement denying the averments in the claim application

- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 29.03.2007, in O.A.A.No.135 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of 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/- consequent on the death of K.Venkatasiva Nagaraju (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 27.04.2001 was dismissed.

The appellants/applicants filed the claim application stating that the applicants are the parents of the deceased; that on 27.04.2001, the deceased, along with his brother and sister’s son, boarded train No.442 passenger at Vijayawada to go to Nidubrolu and while getting down from the train at the destination station, the train’s door hit on his back, and fell down from the train; that on account of the fall, the deceased suffered head injuries and his legs were crushed, and while undergoing treatment, he died on the same day.

The respondent-Railways filed a written statement denying the averments in the claim application and stated that as per the Guard of the train, no untoward incident was recorded at Nidubrolu Railway Station on the alleged date and the said train arrived Nidubrolu at

19.54 hours and left at 19.56 hours. As per the information of Deputy Station Superintendent, Nidubrolu, a male person tried to catch running train from the off side, slipped and fell down and since this is a fall from the moving train in a rash and negligent manner, this is a case of self inflicted injury and not an untoward incident and hence, the applicants are not entitled to compensation.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:-

Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased K.Venkatasiva Nagaraju?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.442 passenger travelling from Vijayawada to Nidubrolu on 27.04.2001?

3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train while getting down at Nidubrolu railway station?

4. To what relief?

On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R-1 was marked.

After considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed by the claimants.

Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal?

There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied.

The first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants 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 train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.

Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the name of applicant No.2 in the inquest report was shown as mother of the deceased, who died in an untoward incident and that Ex.A-4 certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer would clearly go to show that she is the dependent of the deceased, and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order and award compensation.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that on the ground that no dependency certificate was filed by the applicants, the claim application was dismissed because once they are not the dependents, the question of awarding compensation does not arise; that there is absolutely no documentary evidence to show that applicant No.2 is the dependent of the deceased; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and prays to sustain the same.

Under Section 124-A of the Act, condition precedent for claiming compensation is that the applicant must show that he was a dependent of the passenger, who died in an untoward incident. Section 123(b) of the Act reads as follows: "Dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:- (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre- deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grand parent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.” Though applicant No.2 is said to be the mother of the deceased and applicant No.1 is the husband of applicant No.2, the applicants failed to produce any document to show that they were actually depending on the earnings of their deceased son. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and that order needs no interference by this Court.