THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.205 of 2010 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.06.2009 passed in O.A.A.No.135 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was granted to the respondents 1 and 2 towards compensation for the death of one Duvvuru Rajesh Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. 2 The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating as follows: That are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 30.05.2005 the deceased came to Sullurupet Railway Station along with his cousin Kamireddy Mohan Raja Reddy at about 7.30 AM and that his cousin purchased a ticket for the deceased to go to Nellore and he also gave a cash of Rs.1,200/- for bringing biscuits for his business from Nellore and the deceased kept the said amount in his pocket and boarded Train No.175 Chenai-Nellore Memu Passenger at Sullurupet Railway Station and when the train reached Naidupet Railway Station there was heavy rush of passengers getting in and getting down from the train. When the train started suddenly due to the rash and jerks the deceased accidentally fell down from the train at Naidupet Railway Station at about 08.25 hours, as a result of which, the train ran over the deceased causing severe injuries to him. Immediately the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Naidupet and from there while he was shifted to Ruya Hospital, Tirupathi for better treatment, he succumbed to the injuries near Srikalahasti. Hence the parents of the deceased filed the present application to grant compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the appellant under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement stating that on 30.05.2005 at about 8.25 hours, Guard of the said train, which had halted at Naidupet Railway Station, had given a memo to Station Master, Naidupet that one person was injured due to falling from the train. The Station Master who arrived on the spot found the injured lying between KM 108/12-14 opposite to P.F. stall on platform No.1 and further stated that the willful negligence of the deceased amounts to self inflicted injury and that the incident cannot be described as an untoward incident as defined in Section 123 (c) (2) of the Act and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.175 Memu Passenger travelling from Sullurupet to Nellore on 30.05.2005? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 are marked. On behalf of the appellant / Railways no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and awarded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the respondents/ applicants as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of the order failing which the applicants shall be entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and valid? 8 The learned standing counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there was no ticket to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and that there was no need for the deceased to get down from the train at Naidupet Railway Station and that the present case falls under the self inflicted injuries and therefore the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to the compensation and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased had purchased a ticket to go to Nellore and that he got down at Naidupet Railway Station as there was heavy rush of passengers and when the train moved suddenly with jerks the deceased slipped and fell down from the train and sustained severe injuries and hence applicants are entitled to the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 10 For claiming compensation two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened in which a person died; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are proved or established then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway Administration wants to resist the claim then it has to prove there was no untoward incident happened or that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, or that its case falls under any one of the clauses under Proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11 It is not in dispute before this court that the death of the deceased was due to an untoward incident. Police, after registering the crime, had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the death of the deceased was because of sustaining injuries in an untoward incident. The Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased had also given opinion to the effect that the deceased died due to the multiple injuries. 12 The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the applicants did not produce the ticket and therefore the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. No doubt, ticket was not produced by the applicants to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. But at the same time they examined A.W.2, who is none other than the cousin of the deceased has categorically stated that he went to the railway station Sullurupet to drop the deceased who was going to Nellore on that day and that he saw the deceased purchasing a ticket and that he also handed over Rs.1200/- to the deceased for his business purpose. If the evidence of A.W.2 is true, reliable and trustworthy, there is no difficulty in accepting the same. No doubt, A.W.2 is closely related to the deceased. But the relationship by itself is not a ground to discard the testimony of a witness and if the evidence of relations after evaluating the same is found to be in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in placing reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. The presence of A.W.2 at the relevant point of time the deceased purchasing ticket is not in dispute. Further more, he was examined as one of the witnesses during the inquest, where he stated before the police that he saw the deceased purchasing a ticket. So, when the presence of A.W.2 is not denied or disputed at the time of the deceased purchasing ticket his evidence can be relied upon. There are no other reasons to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly accepted the evidence of A.W.2. if the evidence of A.W.2 is to be accepted, then there is no difficulty to hold that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. 13 The other contention of the leaned standing counsel for the appellant is that the injuries sustained by the deceased are self inflicted injuries in terms of Cl.3 of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The term ‘Self Inflicted Injury’ is not defined in the Act. It can be said to be an intentional act of harming oneself. In other words, it is a deliberate self-harm. Injurer wanted to take advantage of being injured. The injury is done to oneself, without the aid of another person. The word intentionally denotes that it is done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects. There are no other circumstances indicating that the deceased wanted intentionally to sustain some injuries by boarding a running train and with that intention only the deceased tried to board the train. The burden is on the Railways to establish that their case falls under any one of the exceptions provided in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Except taking a plea that it is a case of self inflicted injury, the Railway Administration did not place any other evidence on record to substantiate the same. Therefore, in the absence of any such substantiating evidence being placed on record, the contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant that the deceased died due to the self inflicted injuries cannot be accepted. Hence the Tribunal has rightly taken all these aspects into consideration and passed the impugned award and that order needs no interference by this court. 14 In view of the above discussion, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs. The counsel for the appellant is entitled to a fee of Rs.5,000/-. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 28.09.2011 Kvsn