HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.702 of 2009 Date: 22.09.2011 Between: Union of India, Rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. … Appellant and Chatla Vijayamma and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.702 of 2009 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 17.3.2009, in O.A.A.No.84 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Chatla Ratnam (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 13.7.2003, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the wife and children, respectively, of the deceased; that applicant No.1 along with the deceased left their village for Hyderabad in search of coolie work at Hyderabad city leaving their children at their native place for studies, that on 13.7.2003, in the early hours the deceased left Hyderabad for Madhira enroute to their native place to see their children informing her that he would start on the same day night for Hyderabad, that unfortunately, she came to know that her husband was found dead on UP Railway track at KM 508/13-15, between Bonakalu and Nagulavancha Stations while returning Ex.Madhira to Secunderabad on 13.7.2003 due to accidental fall from the train, later she came to know from A.W.2 Babu Rao (Pastor) and Sri Sattaiah of their village and family friends that they happened to meet her husband at Madhira before leaving for Hyderabad, she was further told by Babu Rao that on her husband’s request, he promised for securing job when opportunity comes and gave his telephone number writing on the back of the Railway ticket held by him and on his request the said Babu Rao paid a sum of Rs.300/- as hand loan and asking her husband to contact now and then, that later Sri Babu Rao and Sattaiah left Madhira Railway Station after the deceased purchasing the journey ticket to Secunderabad for Train No.7049 on 13.7.2003. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the application and stated that the message given by Banakalu to SIGRP/Khammam reveals that a male unknown dead body of 25 years age is lying on track at KM 508/15-13 on upline between Bonakalu and Nagulavancha, that the above message was reported to SIGRP/Khammam on 14.7.2003 at 10.25 hours based on the information given by Keyman Unit No.4, that there was no alarm chain pulling between Bonakalu and Nagulavancha and no person or passenger informed about any fall from 7049 express and that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 123 (c) or Section 124-A of the Act; and put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependants of the deceased, and prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the Railways filed this appeal. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and, therefore, the dependants are not entitled to any compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that the evidence of A.W.2, who is a friend of the deceased, is very clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and saw the deceased purchasing ticket for Secunderabad to travel in Machilipatnam-Secunderabad Express; and upon considering the evidence of A.W.2, the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. 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 travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train with a valid ticket or the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute as the dead body was lying on the track. On coming to know about the incident, the police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, which was marked as Ex.A-2. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained on account of accidental fall from a train. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem examination and the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, also opined that the deceased died as a result of the multiple injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the death of the deceased in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train carrying passengers is established beyond preponderance of probability. 12. Now, coming to the second aspect of the case, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, no doubt, the applicants have not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train with valid ticket. But, they have examined A.W.2, who stated that the deceased purchased the ticket for Secunderabad to travel in Machilipatnam – Secunderabad Express. Therefore, his evidence is very clear that the deceased purchased the ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers and that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The presence of A.W.2 cannot be doubted, because he was examined as one of the eye witnesses during the course of inquest. Therefore, there is a possibility for A.W.2 to accompany the deceased to the Railway Station and at that time, there is a scope for A.W.2 to witness the deceased purchasing the ticket. When once the evidence of A.W.2 is found to be true, trustworthy and reliable, there is no legal bar or impediment to place an implicit reliance on his evidence. Further-more, the evidence of A.W.2 can be put in the category of wholly reliable and that is the reason why the trial Court had rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. There are no other reasons to doubt the testimony of A.W.2. Therefore, from the evidence of A.W.2 it is clear that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. When once these two requirements are established, it is needless to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. 13. Coming to the aspect of negligence, the defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the railway administration so as to deny the compensation under Section 124-A of the Act because Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to railway administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The present case does not fall under anyone of the exceptions as provided in the said proviso. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 22.09.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.702 of 2009 22.09.2011 (Msr)