THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 542 of 2009 JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/railways challenging the order dated 13.02.2009 in O.A.A. No.181 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the respondents/claimants was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The respondents/claimants filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of their daughter Pothula Sujatha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train no.7201 Golkonda Express in between Mahaboobabad and Taadlapoosapalli railway stations while traveling from Khammam to Nekkonda. 3. The appellant/railways filed its written statement denying the averments in the claim application and stating that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) or 124A of the Railways Act, and that as per the enquiries with the Keyman, it is revealed that he reported at 11.00 hours that one unknown female dead body was found near upline track between MABD-TAA at KM 435/5- 7, and that the death of the deceased was not on account of an untoward incident and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 4. The Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/railways. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train as the claimants failed to produce the ticket and therefore granting of the compensation is not correct, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased had purchased a ticket and boarded the train, and so, she was a bona fide passenger, and she died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, and hence, upon considering the material on record, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the respondent/railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 8. Death of the deceased in an accidental fall from the train is not in dispute. Her dead body was noticed by the side of the railway track by the Keyman, who reported the incident to the concerned officials of railway. Police, having come to know about the incident, registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body. No doubt, the claimants did not produce any ticket to show that the deceased was traveling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. At the same time, the evidence of A.W.2 would clearly go to show that he accompanied the deceased to the railway station and at the station he saw the deceased purchasing the ticket and boarding the train. His evidence practically remained unchallenged. His statement that the deceased purchased the ticket at the railway station remained uncontroverted. Once a fact has been stated by a witness and the same has not been denied or disputed, the same can be considered as true and correct. Admittedly, the deceased sustained multiple injuries on the body and she was dragged to some distance by the train. So, in that process, the ticket, which was in possession of the deceased, might have been lost. Therefore, the possibility of loosing the ticket while the deceased was falling down from the train cannot be ruled out. So, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The Claims Tribunal has considered these aspects in right perspective and granted the compensation. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence. So, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. . 9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 11.8.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 542 of 2009 11.8.2011