IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.267 OF 2009 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Kolimi Ramulu and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.267 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 11.12.2008, in O.A.A.No16 of 2005 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 Kolimi Janardhan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed directing the Railways to deposit the amount within thirty days from the date of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of actual payment. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. 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 O.A.A. stating that on 03.11.2004 while the deceased was travelling from Mumbai to Raichur by train No.6529 Mumbai CST- Bangalore Udyan Express holding II class ticket, on the same day evening he got down the train at Raichur and at the request of his relative on platform, again he bought a ticket from Raichur to Dharmavaram through his relative Hussainappa and boarded the same train in the same bogie. While travelling in the passenger train, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the passenger train at KM No.194/0-1 in between Zangalapalle and Chigicherla Railway Stations due to speed and jerks of the train in the early hours of 04.11.2004 and as a result he was dragged by the said train for about 66 sleepers, sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 4. Respondent/Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that as per the First Information Report, night patrolman of Chigicherla found one male dead body aged about 35 years at K.M No.190-0-1 in between Zangalapalli –Chigicherla Railway stations; that the Station Superintendent, Dharmavaram sent a message to SI/GRP at about 08:00 hours on 04.11.2004; there is no information from any eyewitnesses about the incident; that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Sec.123(c) or Sec.124A of the Railways Act and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following are framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicants are the dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.6529 Udyan express traveling from Mumbai to Raichur on 03.11.2004? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was got marked. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/railways contended that the applicants failed to produce the ticket to show that the deceased travelled in the passenger train on that day and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation; that the Railway administration is not disputing about the untoward incident, in which the deceased died and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that he purchased the ticket and the same was handed over to the deceased and that evidence remained unchallenged; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), 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 a passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicants fall under any one of the clauses mentioned under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 10. As far as the untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased had fallen from the running train and the dead body was traced by the side of the track by the Key man of the Railways. He also informed the same to the concerned officials. Police registered a case and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and also conducted post mortem examination. With regard to the second aspect whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket or not, the applicants have not filed any ticket to show that the deceased was travelling in the passenger train on that day. But, at the same, A.W.2 was examined to show that he purchased the ticket and the same was handed over to the deceased. The Railway administration has not adduced any rebuttal evidence to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. Therefore, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. From the evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 11.12.2008 in O.A.A.No.16 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 12, 2011 YVL