THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.768 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 17.03.2009 in O.A.A.No.158 of 2004, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition filed by the respondents/applicants, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Manda Kamala (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’), was allowed. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent and the respondents in the appeal are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed the claim application stating that on 25.05.2004, the deceased in order to go from Kazipet to Mandamarri boarded Bhagyanagar Express train, but the train has crossed Mandamarri railway station and with an intention to get down at the next station, she stood near the door of the compartment but because of some jerks of the train she had fallen down from the train and died. The railway authorities came to know about it on the same night but the applicants came to know about it only on the next day. The deceased has a valid ticket for the journey. Hence, the claim petition. 4. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application and stating that the finding of the ticket was questioned; that even if the ticket was taken into consideration, it was only up to Mandamarri, whereas the dead body of the deceased was found lying by the tracks after Mandamarri; that as per the guard of Bhagyanagar Express, no untoward incident had happened on that day and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Were the applicants dependants of the deceased? 2. Was the deceased a bona fide passenger? 3. Did she die of an untoward incident of fall from a train? 4. To what relief?” 6. To substantiate the case of the applicants, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined but no document was got marked. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that she was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket, and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 9. Learned standing counsel for the appellant/railways contended that the incident had taken place after the train has passed Mandamarri railway station, which is the destination of the deceased and so, she became an unauthorized passenger after Mandamarri and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 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 applicants 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 the train carrying passengers with 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 that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that the case of railways 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. The dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of railway track near Mandamarri railway station. During the course of inquest on the dead body of the deceased, police seized a valid ticket to travel from Kazipet to Mandamarri. Ex.A4 is the Original Ticket. The investigation conducted by the police revealed that the deceased did not get down at Mandamarri railway station by mistake because she was sleeping at that point of time and in her anxiety to get down from the train little later after the train passed Mandamarri railway station, she fell down accidentally from the train and died. It is not the case of railway administration that the deceased wanted to travel beyond Mandamarri. An express ticket was purchased by the deceased to travel from Khazipet to Mandamarri. It is the duty of the railway officials to alert the passengers at the relevant station of destination Admittedly, no alert was given to the passengers. It is not a case where the deceased was travelling intentionally beyond Mandamarri. As the deceased was sleeping at that point of time when the train reached Mandamarri, the possibility of not getting down from the train at Mandamarri station cannot be ruled out. Immediately after she woke up, she tried to get down from the running train. In that process, she slipped accidentally, fell down from the train and died. So, it is an untoward incident. The deceased was having a ticket to travel up to Mandamarri. Due to some negligence on the part of the deceased in not getting down at Mandamarri railway station, the respondents/applicants cannot be denied the compensation, as the deceased appears to be a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 22, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.768 OF 2009 Between: Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Manda Venkatamallaiah and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.768 OF 2009 September 22, 2011 MD