JUDGEMENT : Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned advocates on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. Sri.Shashidhara R, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Abhinay Y. T., learned counsel for respondent, have appeared in-person. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The claimants have preferred this appeal calling in question the judgment and award dated 14.11.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, whereby, the learned Member has dismissed the claim petition. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the revision petition. 5. The petition averments are stated as under: An application came to be filed under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the claimants seeking compensation for the death of their son -Srinivasa Reddy. It is stated that on 30.03.2012, Station Master Chikkajajur Railway Station appears to have received information from Sri.Shekharappa, Gangman No.12, that one male aged about 50 years, run over at Railway K.M.No.276/300-400 between Chikkajajur -Holalkere Railway Stations and as per the report, a case was registered in UDR No.25/2012 duly following the procedures. During investigation, one railway ticket No.58710147 for Rs.37/-dated 26.03.2012 was found in the pocket of the deceased and the ticket was from Yeshwanthpura to Chikkajajur. Along with railway ticket, a purse, photo of the deceased, Sony Erickson mobile phone [in switched off mode], were found and the same were recovered during investigation. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer brought the mobile phone to the station and switched on the mobile phone based on which, the father of the deceased was contacted and he identified the dead body as his son-Srinivasa Reddy. It is further stated that deceased -Srinivasa Reddy left the Bangalore on 26.03.2012 from Yeshwanthpura Railway Station and he purchased a railway ticket from Yeshwanthpura to Chikkajajur. While he was traveling in the train, he accidentally fell down from the running train and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, claim petition is filed by the parents of the deceased seeking compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. The Railway authority denied the allegations made by the claimants and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. While he was traveling in the train, he accidentally fell down from the running train and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, claim petition is filed by the parents of the deceased seeking compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. The Railway authority denied the allegations made by the claimants and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It is further stated that the claim made out by the claimants does not come within the ambit of Section 123 (c) of the Act. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. On the basis of the above said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether there was any untoward incident as is defined under the Provisions of Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? 3. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled any relief and interest as prayed for in the application? In order to substantiate the claim, applicant No.1 -Sri.M.R.Thippareddy, father of the deceased subjected himself for cross examination before the Tribunal as AW-I and produced ten documents which were marked as Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of respondents, one -Sri.R.Bhojaraja Shetty, ASI / Chikkajajur Railway Police Station / DVG Outpost was examined as CW-1 and produced one document which was marked as Ex.R1 -DRM's Investigation Report. On the summary of the action, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as devoid of merit. Hence, this appeal. 6. Sri.Shashidhara.R, learned counsel for appellants submits that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is illegal, erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. Next, he submitted that it is the case of the claimants that on 26.03.2012, their son -Srinivasa Reddy had purchased ticket No.58710147 from Yeshwanthpur for a sum of Rs.37/-to go to Chikkajajur, He was travelling in the train as a bona fide passenger. Counsel submitted that he accidentally fell down from the running train and succumbed to the injuries. To prove the said fact, the appellants produced voluminous documents, but the Tribunal without considering all these documents has dismissed the claim petition. A further submission was made that the Tribunal failed to notice that as per the investigation papers and Ex.R1 DRM Report, the railway ticket was recovered during investigation. To prove the said fact, the appellants produced voluminous documents, but the Tribunal without considering all these documents has dismissed the claim petition. A further submission was made that the Tribunal failed to notice that as per the investigation papers and Ex.R1 DRM Report, the railway ticket was recovered during investigation. It is further submitted that it is the duty of the railway authorities to see the safety of every passenger. In fact, the dead body was found by the railway authorities only on 30.03.2012 from the information furnished by the Gangman. The Tribunal has erred in holding that dead body was not noticed by anyone and the son of the claimants died due to some other reasons. It is submitted that the appellants in order to prove the death of their son -Srinivasa Reddy, claimants have produced police documents and valid railway ticket. The father of the deceased got examined himself as AW-1 and in the cross examination nothing has been elicited to disprove the claim. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in recording the finding that if the deceased had purchased the ticket on 26.03.2012 and traveled in the train and fell down from the train accidentally then the dead body should have got noticed on the very same day. But the same was noticed on 30.03.2012. Therefore, it infers that deceased did not die due to fall from train but due to some other reasons. Counsel vehemently urged that there is no evidence on record except, DRM report and also respondent not bothered to examine any one who witnessed the incident as per DRM report. Such being the situation, the entire approach of the Tribunal is bad in law and same is liable to be set aside. Counsel further submitted that CW-1 -R. Bhojaraj Shetty ASI/Chikkajagur Railway Police station /DVG outpost has in fact admitted that the ticket No is 58710147' but during the investigation, it was wrongly mentioned as 58710447'. Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order is unsustainable in law and the appeal may be allowed. 7. Sri.Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for respondent sought to justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order is unsustainable in law and the appeal may be allowed. 7. Sri.Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for respondent sought to justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Next, he submitted that the claimants have not established that their son -Srinivasa Reddy, was a bona fide passenger and therefore, he submitted that the Tribunal considering the material on record and justified in dismissing the claim petition. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 8. I have heard the rival contentions urged on behalf of parties. The shot point which requires to be answered is whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? It is the specific case of the claimants that their son was holding a valid ticket and was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train which squarely come within the meaning of ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Act. ‘Untoward incident’ is defined as “123. Definitions. - In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,? (a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in section 124; (b) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:? (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger. (c) "untoward incident" means? (c) "untoward incident" means? (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section (3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” In the present case, the deceased had purchased the ticket from Yeshwantpura Railway Station and was traveling in the train and accidentally fell down from the train and succumbed to injuries. CW-1 has given evidence regarding ticket. It is relevant to note that the even CW-1 has stated that the ticket was recovered during investigation. But he has stated that the original ticket number and the ticket number noted in para 7 of Inquest Report does not match. It is perhaps well to observe that the original ticket number is 58710147. But during investigation, the number was wrongly mentioned as 58710447. The Investigation Officer has wrongly noted the ticker number. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal has held that the ticket is planted one. I find myself unable to accept the said finding for the simple reason that it is duty of the Investigation Officer to apply the mind and take note of the ticket number correctly. Having not done so, it cannot be held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. I find it appropriate to set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal and to award statutory compensation to the claimants. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in OA II U 90/2012 dated 14.11.2016 is set aside holding that the claimants are entitled for a statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The respondents are hereby directed to deposit the said amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in OA II U 90/2012 dated 14.11.2016 is set aside holding that the claimants are entitled for a statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The respondents are hereby directed to deposit the said amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the following manner, the compensation apportioned as below:- Name of the Claimant Apportionment Amount invested in Fixed Deposit Sri.M. R. Thippareddy Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Smt. M. V. Manjula Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- The respondents are directed to deposit 50% of the compensation amount which shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank in the name of the appellants-claimants for a period of 5 years and they are entitled to withdraw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 50% shall be released in their favor, on proper identification. The respondent / railways are directed to adhere to the above order within 90 days from the date of this order and:- 1. Instruct the Bank concerned to pay quarterly interest to applicants accrued on their respective deposits. 2. Not to allow/entertain applicants to raise loan against the said deposits or withdraw prematurely without the express permission of this Court. 3. To release deposits only with order of this Court. 25.08.2021 (Through video conferencing/physical hearing) ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2021 Sri.Shashidhara.R learned counsel for appellants and Proxy counsel -Sri.Raghu.R learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Abhinay.Y.T for respondent have appeared in person. The matter is listed for hearing on interlocutory application. Sri.Shashidhara.R, counsel for appellants has filed an application -I.A.No.1/2021 to treat appellant-1 as sole surviving legal representative of deceased -appellant-2 and also sought for a direction to be issued to the Tribunal to release the entire amount in favour of appellant-1. Counsel submits that this Court on 09.03.2021 had disposed of the matter and awarded statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the appellants and apportioned the compensation in the ratio of 50% each to both the appellants. Counsel further submits that appellant-2 Smt.M.V.Manjula has died on 25.12.2020. He submits that when the matter was posted for final disposal, he was not aware of the death of appellant-2. It is only thereafter, appellant-1 has brought to his notice that appellant-2 -Smt.M.V.Manjula has died. Counsel further submits that appellant-2 Smt.M.V.Manjula has died on 25.12.2020. He submits that when the matter was posted for final disposal, he was not aware of the death of appellant-2. It is only thereafter, appellant-1 has brought to his notice that appellant-2 -Smt.M.V.Manjula has died. Therefore, he submits that the same was not brought to the notice of this Court, when the appeal was posted for final disposal. Under these circumstances, he submits that appellant-1 may be treated as sole surviving legal representative of deceased -appellant-2. He also submits that appellant-1 is the husband of deceased -appellant-2 and the sole surviving legal representative of appellant-2 and hence, he is entitled for the compensation awarded in favour of appellant-2. Therefore, he submits that appellant-2 may be deleted from the appeal and a direction be issued to the Tribunal to release the entire compensation amount in favour of appellant-1. Accordingly, he submits that the judgment dated 09.03.2021 passed by this Court may be modified. Proxy Counsel -Sri.Raghu.R, on instructions submits that counsel on record -Sri.Abhinay Y.T. has no objection to release the compensation in favour of appellant-1. Heard the learned counsel for appellant-1 and respondent. Perused the application -I.A.No.1/2021. Being satisfied with the cause shown in the affidavit, appellant-1 being the husband and sole surviving legal representative of deceased -appellant-2 is treated as sole surviving legal representatives of deceased -appellant-2 and he is entitled for the statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only). Therefore, the judgment passed by this Court on 09.03.2021 is modified at para 9 as under: 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in OA II U 90/2012 dated 14.11.2016 is set aside holding that the claimant No.1/appellant-1 is entitled for a statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only). The respondent / Railway -Authority is hereby directed to deposit Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this modified order. In the compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only), an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) shall be released in favor of appellant-1 after due identification. In the compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only), an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) shall be released in favor of appellant-1 after due identification. In the following manner, the compensation awarded is as below:- Name of the Claimant Statutory Compensation awarded Amount to be invested in Fixed Deposit Amount to be released in favour of appellant-1 Sri.M.R.Thippareddy Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) The respondent -Railway -Authority is directed to deposit Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) of the compensation amount which shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank in the name of the appellant-1-claimant-1 for a period of three years and he is entitled to withdraw the accrued interest thereon periodically and the remaining Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) shall be released in his favor, on proper identification. The respondent/Railway Authority is directed to adhere to the following instructions:- 1. Instruct the Bank concerned to pay quarterly interest accrued thereon on the deposited amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) to appellant-1. 2. Not to allow/entertain appellant-1 to raise loan against the said deposit and permit appellant-1 to withdraw the amount prematurely. 3. To release the deposited amount to appellant-1 only with order of this Court. Office to carry out the aforesaid corrections and re-issue fresh certified copy of the judgment." The rest of the judgment stands as it is. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2021 is disposed of. Registry concerned to draw up the decree in view of the modified judgment. This order shall be read in conjunction with the judgment dated 09.03.2021 passed by this Court in MFA No.567/2017.