IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.603 OF 2005 Between: The Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Gajavalli Adinarayana and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.603 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 28.02.2005, in O.A.A.No.50 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed claiming compensation on account of death of the son of the respondents herein, was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: The deceased Gajavalli Pradeep was a student studying Polytechnic at Vijayawada. He was having a quarterly II class season ticket to travel between Eluru and Vijayawada. On 18.02.2001, while the deceased was slowly going inside the compartment of train No.8689, Bokaro Steel City/Tatanagar Alleppy Express, the train moved and due to jerk, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train, sustained injuries and died on the sport. The passengers pulled the chain, the train was stopped and the matter was reported to the police. Police registered a case and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Autopsy was also conducted on the dead body of the deceased by the doctor. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The respondent - railways filed the written statement denying the allegation that the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally at Eluru Station platform and that the death occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accidental fall. The guard of the train stated that after scheduled stop of the train for two minutes, the train was passing and due to shouting of the passengers in the middle of the train, the guard got stopped the train and found one male passenger, aged about 18 years, was run over and killed. The alleged accidental fall is not noticed by any other person. Therefore, it is not an accidental fall from the train. Hence, the respondent – railways prays to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicants are the dependants of the deceased Gajavalli Pradeep? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.8689 Express, traveling from Eluru to Vijayawada on 18.02.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of an accidental fall from the train near Eluru railway station? 4. To what relief?” 5. During trial, AW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked, on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. R1 to R3 were got 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 due to the sudden jerk of the train and died in an untoward incident and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident and accidental fall from train No.8689 Bokaro Steel City/Tatanagar Alleppy Express at Eluru railway station. 8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the claimants failed to establish that the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident, within the meaning of Section 124A of the Act, which is a condition precedent for grant of compensation; that no eye witness was examined to speak about the accidental fall of the deceased from the train in question; and that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Under Section 124A of the Act, when a person dies or sustains injuries, travelling as a passenger in a train, Railways are liable to compensate him. The word ‘passenger’ defined under the said provision reads that a person travelling in the train with a valid ticket. For the purpose of invoking Section 124A of the Act, the burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he died in an untoward incident while travelling in a train. 11. The death of the deceased boy, Gajavalli Pradeep, in rail accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased boy was prosecuting his polytechnic at Vijayawada. It is also not in dispute that he was having a quarterly II class season ticket so as to travel between Eluru and Vijayawada. It is also not in dispute that the deceased boy boarded the train at Eluru to go to Vijayawada. So, as on the date of the incident, the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in train No.8689 Bokaro Steel City/Tatanagar Alleppy express. 12. AW.1 is the mother of the deceased. She is not an eyewitness to the incident. Though she stated that due to heavy rush of passengers the deceased was standing near the door and when trying to go inside the compartment, the train moved and due to the jerk of the train, the deceased fell down, that evidence can not be accepted because, admittedly, she was not an eye-witness to the accident travelling along with her son. No other witness is examined to show that the deceased had fallen from the train accidentally. In the absence of any eye witness the Latin maxim res ipsa loquitur would apply, which means ‘the thing speaks for itself’. 13. The guard of the train got stopped the train after hearing commotion at Eluru station and found a male passenger aged 18 years was run over and killed. It is not in dispute that the duration of halt of Bokaro Steel City/Tatanagar Allepy express train at Eluru is two minutes. The circumstances indicate, the deceased boarded the train. After entering into the train, there must be a jerk to the train, as a result of which the deceased fell down accidentally and sustained injuries. Police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Deputy Station Superintendent, mediators and the guard of the train and prepared the inquest report. The Deputy Station Superintendent and the guard were shown as witnesses. The cause of death shown in the inquest report was that due to rush of passengers, when the deceased was slowly going inside the compartment, the train moved and due to the jerk he fell down accidentally and got killed. The oral evidence of respondents/claimants is completely in corroboration with the medical evidence and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 14. In view of the fact that the duration of halt is very short, the deceased was hurry in the process of boarding the train, and the train must have moved, and in the process of moving there must have been jerk to the train, as a result the deceased would have fallen from the running train. It is not a case of deceased jumping from the train due to some other reason. As the chain of the train was pulled by some body, the train was stopped. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence on record that the deceased was run over by the moving train. He was a bona fide passenger having valid ticket to travel from Eluru to Vijayawada. There was no scope or possibility for the deceased to jump from the moving train. Therefore, the evidence on record would clearly go to show that it is a case of the deceased falling from the train due to the jerk of the train and as a result he sustained injuries and died. 15. Admittedly, they are not eye-witnesses to the incident. RWs.1 & 2 are examined on behalf of railways. They simply stated that after hearing the commotion, the train was stopped and the dead body of the deceased was found lying. Therefore, the evidence on record would establish that the deceased died in an untoward incident by falling accidentally from the running train due to sudden jerk. The claims Tribunal upon proper consideration of entire evidence on record rightly granted the compensation. The said order needs no interference by this court. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 09, 2010 MD