IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.917 OF 2006 Between: The Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Pasupuleti Kotamma and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.917 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 12.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.201 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Pasupuleti Pedda Mahanandi (herein after referred to as, ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 09.08.2000, the deceased boarded train No.433, Bangalore – Guntur passenger, at Panyam Railway Station in general compartment to go to Markapuram Road with II Class journey ticket bearing No.04924. When the train stopped at Markapuram Railway Station, while the deceased was trying to get down from the train, he was pushed out by other passengers and due to heavy rush and sudden jerks of the train, he accidentally slipped and fell down and sustained multiple injuries, leading to his death on the spot. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The respondent – railways denied the case of the applicants and stated that since the body of the deceased was found near Advance Starter, the death might be on account of some criminal act on the part of the deceased; that neither there was any untoward incident took place at Markapuram Railway Station nor any complaint was given by any passenger regarding fall of a person. Hence, the respondent – railways prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased Pasupuleti Pedda Mahanandi? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No.433 Bangalore – Guntur passenger travelling from Panyam to Markapuram Road on 09.08.2000 as alleged? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 4. To what relief?” 5. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were got marked. In addition, the original First Information Report and Inquest Report were summoned and marked. 6. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the moving train and died in an untoward incident and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 7 . Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant – railways contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train; that AWs.1 and 2 are not eye- witnesses to the incident; that therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal committed serious error in awarding compensation to the respondents and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9 . In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondents/claimants. 10. There cannot be any dispute that for claiming compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”) two requirements have to be satisfied viz., (1) there is an untoward incident in which the person received injuries or died and (2) the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger to travel in the passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the claimants are entitled for compensation. 11. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. Police after registration of crime held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and the inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of falling from running train. No doubt, there is no evidence to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train, but at the same time, while conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased, police seized a ticket and the ticket number has been specifically mentioned in the inquest report. The objective findings in the inquest report are admissible under law. The ticket number as noted by the police in the inquest report is not shown to be an invalid ticket. Therefore, when the deceased was holding a valid ticket, it can be presumed that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. In view of the fact that the incident had taken place during night, the question of examining eye-witness to the incident may not arise. The other co-passengers might not have seen the deceased falling from the train. The body of the deceased was found near the track and the injuries sustained by the deceased are shown to have been caused in a railway accident as seen from the post-mortem report. Therefore, when the dead body of the deceased was found by the side of the track, it can be safely be inferred that the deceased might have fallen from a running train accidentally. As the case does not fall under any one of the clauses to proviso to Section 124A of the Act, the respondents/claimants are entitled for compensation and the Tribunal rightly granted compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 06, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.917 OF 2006 April 06, 2011