THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.978 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the applicants, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 21-08-2009 in O.A.A No.96 of 2004 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/- for the death K.Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that on 25-08-2002 while the deceased was travelling in a passenger train from Kagaznagar to Manchierial to get some spare parts, he accidentally fell down from the train at K.M.203/16-18 and died. They stated that the ticket was lost in the accident. Hence, the claim application. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments in the application and stated that the body was found by the key man and reported by the SS as reflected in the FIR. There was no ticket even as per the inquest report and hence, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1.Whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased? 2.Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3.Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of fall from the train? 4.To what relief? 5. During enquiry, on behalf of applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked. On behalf of Railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, but no documents were marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the body of the deceased was found lying on the track and therefore, he accidentally fell down from the train and hence, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation. 9. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the Railways contended that no ticket was produced by the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train, that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. 11. Insofar as bona fide passenger is concerned, the initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased purchased the ticket and was travelling in a passenger train. No evidence of whatsoever was adduced by the applicants to show that the deceased purchased the ticket and was travelling in the train. A.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and A.W.2 is the owner under whom the deceased was working. Their evidence would not go to show that the deceased purchased the ticket to travel in the train. Furthermore, place of incident is at a distance of 1 K.M. from the residence of the deceased. In such circumstances, the deceased ought not to have travelled in a train. If really, he was travelling in a train, he would have purchased the ticket and the same would have been found in the pocket of the deceased at the time of holding inquest. Police did not find any ticket in the pocket of the deceased and they did not seize the ticket. That itself shows that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 24-08-2011 Hsd