THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.313 OF 2006 DATED: 16-03-2011. Between Union of India rep. by General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. … Appellant And 1.T.Ramulu and another …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 313 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 04-01-2006 in O.A.A No.219 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of their son namely, T.Venkatesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed. 2. Brief facts are that the deceased while traveling by Train No.324 Manikgarh-Badrachalam Road Fast Passenger in General Compartment with a valid journey ticket bearing No.10260, on 17- 078-1999 from Jammikunta to Peddapalli fell down accidentally at KM 329/22-24, as a result, his head was broken and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that there was no report of an untoward incident by the said train and the fall, if at all, may be due to negligent and criminal acts of the deceased, that as the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, the applicants are not entitled for any compensation and hence, it prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased T.Venkatesh? 2.Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No.324 Manikgarh-Bhadrchalam Road passenger, traveling from Peddapalli to Jammikunta? 3.Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Bisugir Shariff and Jammikunta Railway Stations? 4.To what relief? 5. During the enquiry, on behalf of applicants A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the Railways, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and directed the Railways to pay the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of the order, else it shall carry interest at 6% per annum till realization. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned standing counsel for the appellant-Railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, that therefore, there is no liability on the part of the Railways to pay the compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. It is the case of the applicants that the deceased was no other than their son who died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the Passenger Train No.324. Police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and found journey ticket bearing No.10260. Therefore, it shows that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It is not the case of the Railways that the ticket seized by the police during the course of inquest, is fabricated or bogus one. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries to the vital organs. Final opinion would go to show that the death of the deceased was accidental fall from the train. Once it is found that the deceased died in an untoward incident while traveling in a passenger train, the Railways are liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. If the case of the Railways falls under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, then the burden is on them, but no evidence was adduced by the Railways to show that the case on hand comes under the purview of any one of the clauses to the said Section. Hence, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 16-03-2011 Hsd