J U D G M E N T:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in OA II(u) No.483 of 2013, dated 18.11.2020, the applicants have preferred the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The deceased was working as a lorry driver in Kanakadurga Transport Company. On 06.02.2013, the deceased went to visit his elder sister, namely, Appala Narayanamma, at Nellimarla Village. After meeting his sister, while returning home, he met his brother-in-law, namely, Godavari Surya Prakash Rao, who was working as a TV mechanic at Vizianagaram. After dinner, the said Godavari Surya Prakash Rao accompanied the deceased to Vizianagaram Railway Station on 07.02.2013. The deceased purchased a journey ticket worth Rs.35/- for Train No.17479 Puri-Tirupati Express from Vizianagaram to Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, Godavari Surya Prakash Rao sent off the deceased and returned home. While travelling in the said train, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down due to jerks and heavy rush of passengers in the compartment and sustained grievous injuries, resulting in his death on the spot at KM No.861/2A between Pendurthi and Kothavalasa Railway Stations near Pendurthi Railway Station. It is stated that the journey ticket was lost during the accident. Hence, the claim petition.

4. The respondent-Railway Administration filed a written statement denying the relationship of the applicants with the deceased and also their dependency for claiming compensation. The applicants were put to strict proof of the same. It was further contended that there was no cause of action for filing the claim application and that the claim did not fall within the ambit of Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989. The respondent specifically denied the averments made in paragraph No.6 of the claim application and contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and was not in possession of a valid journey ticket. According to the respondent, the alleged ticket details were created for the purpose of filing the O.A. and, therefore, sought dismissal of the claim application with costs.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether theApplicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of a Train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?

3. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

6. During the enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no oral evidence was adduced; however, the Divisional Railway Manager’s report was marked as Ex.R1.

7. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the material on record and after hearing on both sides, held that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger has dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.

8. Heard Mr.P.L.Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms.M.Uma Devi, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent.

9. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and also the deceased has not sustained injuries nor died due to an untoward incident. 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.

10. Learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent would contend that the deceased was not possessing valid railway journey ticket at the time of untoward incident. Therefore he cannot be termed as a bona fide passenger. The claim is not fall under S