The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation for death in a railway accident under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989.

1. The appellant / respondent has preferred the present appeal against the Order dated 11.08.2009, in O.A.No.155 of 2008, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The appellants, who are the parents of the deceased C.Ananthanarayanan, had filed a claim application in O.A.No.155 of 2008, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation from the respondent for the death of their son in a railway accident.

3. It was submitted that when the deceased was travelling in EMU train bound for Thirumalpur from Chennai Beach, by boarding it in Nungambakkam and when he tried to alight from the train at St.Thomas Mount, he had accidently slipped and fallen down and died. It was also submitted that the deceased had a valid season ticket bearing No.396582561. Hence, the applicants had filed the claim petition against the respondent.

4. The respondent, in their counter statement, had submitted that the alleged incident might be one other than falling from the running train for which the respondent is not liable under Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989. It was also submitted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and hence it was prayed to dismiss the claim application.

5. In D.R.M's report dated 25.04.2009, it was mentioned that the accidental fall from the train and the availability of the season ticket have been admitted. But, in the reply a contradictory and conflicting position had been taken by the respondent. No explanation had been offered on behalf of the respondent regarding the contradictions in the reply statement vis-a-vis the contents of the DRM report.

6. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed five issues namely:

i. Was there an untoward incident involving the deceased envisaged under Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 as alleged?

ii. Whether all the applicants are the only dependants of the deceased as alleged as per Section 123(b)(i) to (iv) of the Railways Act, 1989?

iii. Whether all the applicants are entitled to any compensation and if so, the quantum for each?

iv. Whether the applicants are entitled to the interest claimed? and

v. To what other relief, if any?

7. On the applicants' side one witness was examined as A.W.1 and ten documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A10 namely monthly season ticket, I.D.Card, I.D.card of the deceased, FIR, inquest report in Crime No.558 of 2008, death report, postmortem certificate, final report, death certificate, legal heir certificate. On the respondent's side one witness was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.

8. A.W.1 had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.A1 to A10. On scrutiny of Ex.A3, it is seen that the deceased was a student and unmarried. On scrutiny of Ex.A10 it is seen that the applicants are the parents of the deceased and the only legal heirs of the deceased. On scrutiny of Ex.R1, it is seen that the deceased had fallen down from the train and had expired and that he had a valid second class season ticket (No.396582561) to travel between STM and MPK. On scrutiny of Ex.A8 final report, the police had concluded the case as 'Train Accidental Death) and that the deceased due to slip of foot, had fallen down on the track and died on the spot, while he was getting down at St.Thomas Mount Railway Station from EMU Train.

9. Hence, the Railway Tribunal had held that the deceased, who was a bonafide passenger (with valid season ticket) envisaged under Section 123(2) of Railways Act, 1989, had died in an untoward incident. The Railway Tribunal, on scrutiny of the Compensation Rules, had held that the applicants are entitled to get Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation, as per the prescribed rate of compensation for death. Further, the Tribunal had held that the applicants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6