C.M.A No. 34 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order dated 14- 10-2010 in O.A.A.No.505 of 2005, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Claims Tribunal’).

Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 16-12-2004, the deceased-Hussan purchased a train ticket and boarded the train No.1014 at Gooty to go to Guntakal, and on account of heavy rush in the compartment, he was standing near the door, and at that time, due to sudden jerks and jolts, he slipped and fell from the running train, as a result, he sustained severe injuries and while taking treatment, died on the same day. Hence, the applicants filed the application claiming compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), for the death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident.

The respondent-railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 124-A of the Act and puts the applicants to strict proof of the same. It is further stated that the incident caused by the criminal acts of the deceased and as such the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Hence, the railways have no liability to pay any compensation at all.

Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.1014 Coimbatore-Kurla express traveling from Gooty to Guntakal on 18-01-2004?

3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train?

4. To what relief?

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the applicants failed to prove that they are the dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. Challenging the same, the appellants filed the present appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned standing counsel for the respondent-railways and perused the record.

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

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that due to inadvertence, the applicants have not impleaded all the dependents and he prays to give one more opportunity to the appellants to enable them to implead all the dependents of the deceased, by remanding the matter to the Claims Tribunal.

On the other hand the learned standing counsel for the respondent-railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim on the ground that all the dependents were not impleaded. Hence, there are no grounds to allow the appeal.

Section 125 of the Act inter alia provides that an application for compensation under Section 124-A may be made to Claims Tribunal, where death has resulted from the accident (or the untoward incident) by any dependent of the deceased. Sub Section (2) of Section 125 provides that every application by a dependent for compensation shall be for the benefit of every other dependent.

The 1st appellant is the wife of the deceased, 2nd appellant is the daughter and the 3rd appellant is the son of the deceased. The 1st appellant being an illiterate, could not have been advised properly to implead all the dependents by filing the implead petition. Therefore, one more opportunity can be given to the appellants to produce necessary documents before the Claims Tribunal to prove the claim under Section124-A of the Act for claiming compensation.