Appeal Under Section_____against ordersbegs to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous appeal against the Judgment dated 16.03.2020 passed in OA.II (U) No. 81 of 2010, on the file of the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. GEETHA MADHURI N S

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:-

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim application filed by the appellants/applicants in OAII(U) No.81 of 2010 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench vide judgment dated 16.03.2020, this civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants.

For better appreciation of the case, the parties will be hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

The applicants are father and sisters of one N. Praveen Kumar (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟). It is the case of the applicants that the deceased was working as Collection Assistant in Spandana Micro Finance, Kavali and on 13.02.2010, while the deceased was travelling in train No.2763 (Padmavati express) in 2nd class general compartment, he accidentally fell off the train at Tenali railway station due to sudden jerks and died on the spot. Seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the accidental death of the deceased occurred in the alleged untoward incident, the applicants have filed a claim application before the Tribunal.

The respondent – South Central Railway contested the claim application by denying the averments and that the deceased fell off the train while travelling at footboard of the train, which is a punishable offence and that no journey ticket was found with the deceased.

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the application is maintainable?

2. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) of the deceased?

3. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train in question?

4. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident?

5. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application?

6. To what relief?

During the course of trial, the claimants got examined A.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondent, no witness was examined, however, the statutory investigation report was marked as Ex.R1.

The Tribunal, after going through the material available before it, came to a conclusion that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died due to an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act. Hence, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the claimants by way of the impugned judgment, challenging which, this appeal has been preferred.

Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. J.V.M.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The learned tribunal without appreciating the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act, simply dismissed the claim of the appellants. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.

Learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that the deceased was not possessing valid railway journey ticket at the time of accident. Therefore he cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. The claim does not fall under Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Therefore there is no fault or lapse on the part of the railways in the alleged mishap; the Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants herein. The learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim made by the appellants after considering the submissions of respondent. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed.

Perused the record.

During hearing l