IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.370 of 2009 Date:11.10.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Mohammad Kumaruddin and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 25.06.2008, in O.A.A.No.494 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Mohammad Nooruddin (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 12.08.2005, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the son and wife of the deceased; that the deceased is an Ex- Serviceman and working as Security Guard in Singareni in Karimnagar District and his native place was Guntur District; that on 12.08.2005, after purchasing ticket No.51933836 for Rs.39/-, he started to go to his native place and was travelling from Ramagundam to Vijayawada; that he met his friend at Vijayawada and after meeting him, both came to Vijayawada Railway Station and purchased ticket for the journey from Vijayawada to Nidubrolu (Ponnur) and boarded passenger train in a general compartment; that as there was heavy rush in the compartment, due to sudden jerks, he slipped and fell down from the train at KM.No.381/31-29 near Modukuru Railway Station and died on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the Claim Application and stated that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 124(c) of the Act and put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased under Section 123(b) of the Act and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train carrying passengers travelling from Vijayawada to Ponnur on 12.08.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-3. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train and that he died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the applicants failed to produce the valid ticket possessed by the deceased to travel in a train carrying passengers from Vijayawada to Nidubrolu and hence, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim application and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased purchased a ticket at Vijayawada and boarded the train; that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident was not denied or disputed; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 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 a 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 or that its case 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 by the side of the railway track, which was noticed by the Keyman of the Railways. The police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, has categorically opined that the death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries sustained by him. 12. Coming to the aspect of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not, no doubt, the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, but at the same time, they examined A.W.2, who categorically stated that the deceased purchased a ticket at Vijayawada to travel in a train carrying passengers from Vijayawada to Nidubrolu. It is not in dispute that the deceased purchased a ticket to travel from Ramagundam to Vijayawada and travelled in a train. Thereafter, there is a possibility of deceased purchasing a ticket at Vijayawada to enable him to go to his native place. The presence of A.W.2 at the relevant point of time of deceased purchasing a ticket is not seriously disputed or denied by the railway administration. There is no other reason to doubt the testimony of A.W.2. That is the reason why the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. From the evidence of A.W.2, it is clear that the deceased purchased a ticket to go to Nidubrolu from Vijayawada. When the deceased had fallen from the train accidentally, the possibility of missing the ticket after the incident cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th October, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.370 of 2009 Date:11.10.2011 AMD