C.M.A.No.3508 of 2008 has been filed by the parents of the deceased-T.Jagan and C.M.A.No.2787 of 2008 has been filed by the wife and two minor children of the deceased-Ekambaram, assailing the impugned orders dated 10.09.2008 & 29.4.2008 passed in O.A.Nos.51 & 121 of 2006 respectively by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, whereby the claim of the appellants for payment of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-each with interest at 12% per annum from the date of incident till the date of payment, for the death of T.Jagan and Ekambaram respectively due to the accidental fall from the moving trains on the respective dates was rejected by the Tribunal.

2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the C.M.A.No.3508 of 2008 are as follows. The parents of the deceased-T.Jagan filed O.A.No.51 of 2006 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench seeking for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-on the ground that their son, aged about 20 years, left the house on the morning of 10.4.2006 at about 7.00 AM by saying that he was going to attend the Ramakrishna Matriculation Higher Secondary School, West Mambalam to write the monthly test after purchasing a monthly season ticket for his travel between Chengalpattu and Mambalam and later came to know from the Railway Police, Chengalpattu that their son, while travelling in a EMU train between Chengalpattu and Singaperumal Koil stations at KM-B56/16, was hit by an electric post, sustained injuries on the back side of his head, accidentally fallen down and died on the spot, which went unnoticed by the driver of the EMU. However, the driver of the EMU TC9 which came towards Tambaram noticed that their son was lying in a pool of blood at the scene of occurrence and passed on the information to the Station Master, Chengalpattu, who in turn lodged a written complaint to the Railway Police, Chengalpattu. Thereupon a case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., in Crime No.79 of 2006. The appellants/applicants also filed the copies of the FIR, death report, final report, death certificate and the legal heirship certificate and ration card in support of their claim and also undertook to produce the inquest report. They also pleaded that since the monthly season ticket with which the deceased travelled on the ill fated day was not retrieved by the Railway Police, Chengalpattu, they would produce the same if it was retrieved/traced out later.

3. A detailed reply statement was filed by the respondent resisting the claim that T.Jagan had not travelled by an EMU train on the alleged date of accident and that he had not accidentally fallen down from the train between Chengalpattu and Singaperumal Koil stations due to hit by electric post. The respondent also pleaded that the case was constructed by the appellants based on the inquest report and not based on any eye-witness report. It was also pleaded that the alleged incident might have happened due to the negligence of the deceased and not due to overcrowding of the train and therefore the respondent was not liable to pay any compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, because the alleged death of T.Jagan would not come under the definition of “untoward incident” of the Act. It was also averred that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger on the alleged date of incident, because the Government Railway Police had not recovered the journey ticket, accordingly prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the C.M.A.No.2787 of 2008 are as follows. The wife and minor children of the deceased-Ekambaram filed O.A.No.121 of 2006 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench seeking for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground that Ekambaram, a construction worker at Parrys, Chennai, was returning from his work along with his associates on 28.5.2002 in the EMU train from Beach station and in between Chetpet and Nungambakkam railway stations near the rail over bridge, the said Ekambaram fell down f