THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.1303 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.08.2008 passed in O.A.A.No.151 of 2003 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 to 3 towards compensation for the death of one Velpula Upender (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 17.04.2003 the deceased while travelling by train No.338 UP passenger from Khammam to Dornakal with second class journey ticket No.28019241, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at M 483/5-9 between Khamma and Mallemadugu Railway Stations and died. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 who are the wife, minor son and mother of the deceased filed the said claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs from the appellant. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that a dead body of a male person was found lying on Up line at KM.483/7-9, as informed by gateman Sri Lingaiah to the Assistant Station Master, Mallemadugu Railway Station, and that as per the inquest the head was separated from the trunk, which reveals that the cause of death was suicide. The appellant further averred in their written statement that there is no eyewitness to the incident and that it is not an accidental fall from train and hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Velpula Upender? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.338 passenger travelling from Khammam to Dornakal on 17.04.2003? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Khammam and Mallemadugu Rly. Stations? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants two witnesses were examined as A.Ws.1 & 2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the appellant 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 applicants/respondents as compensation and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of the copy of the order till 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 contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that it is a case of suicide committed by the deceased and therefore the Railway Administration is not liable to pay compensation to the applicants and hence prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicants contended that Ex.A.4 is the ticket which clearly goes to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and if it is a case of suicide, some more injuries would have been found on the body of the deceased and hence claimants are entitled to the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 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; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. The Railway Administration is seriously contending that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. But at the same time, Ex.A.4 original ticket produced by the claimants clearly goes to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the passenger train. The correctness or genuineness of the ticket has not been denied. There is no rebuttal evidence to show that the ticket is not valid one. Hence the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 11 The specific case of the appellant is that the deceased committed suicide. It is not in dispute that the head of the deceased was separated from the trunk, which suggests that the wheels must have run over on the neck of the deceased. If it is a case of suicide, some more injuries would have been found on the deceased. When the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train and if his head comes into contact with the wheels of compartment there is possibility of severing the head from the body. There cannot be any dispute that when a plea was taken that it is a case of suicide, there must be evidence to prove the same. Having taken such a plea, the Railways failed to adduce any evidence to show that the deceased died by committing suicide. Therefore, considering this aspect the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation to the claimants and that order needs no interference and the appeal is devoid of any merits. 12 In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J 11.08.2011 Kvsn