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.920 OF 2006 Between: The Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Shaik Hashmath Bee and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.920 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 05.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.231 of 2001, 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 Sk. Khadar Basha (hereinafter 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: Applicant No.1 is the wife, applicant No.2 is the daughter, and applicant No.3 is the mother, of the deceased respectively. On 16.03.2001, the deceased while going from Chennai to Kadapa in Dadar Express, at Cheyyaru Bridge near Nandaluru R.S., due to accidental fall from the train, he sustained injuries. He was taken by R.P. Constable for admission in the Government Hospital, Kadapa, by another train No.7489, but he died on the way nearby Kadapa R.S. at 20:45 hours. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The respondent – railways denied the allegation made in the claim and stated that the witnesses cited in the inquest report were not eye witnesses to speak about the accidental fall of the deceased from the passenger train; that as such, the findings cannot be relied as to know the real cause of the death of the deceased; that the bridge watch man, who was on duty at pump house, has informed at 04:00 PM on 16.03.2001, that a person was found lying and alive, which was got confirmed and reported to Deputy Station Superintendent, Nandaluru and then the injured was shifted to hospital; that there was no post- mortem examination report and the actual cause of death of the deceased is not known to confirm it as accidental fall from the train. 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 Shaik Khadar Basha? 2. Whether the deceased was a not a boanfide passenger of train No.6012 Chennai – Mumbai express travelling from Chennai to Kaddapah on 16.03.01? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train under Cheyyur bridge near Nandalur railway station and died while being shifted to Government hospital Cuddapah by train No.7498? 4. To what relief” 5. 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. 6 . Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 7. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant – railways contended that the dead body of the deceased was not subjected to post-mortem examination; that the inquest panchayatdars did not find any injuries at all on the dead body of the deceased; that the respondents failed to establish that the deceased died in an untoward incident or that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in passenger train and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that in view of the fact that the deceased was taken from the place of accident by railway officials to admit in hospital and that the deceased had fallen from the running train, it can be presumed that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that for the faulty investigation done by the Investigating Officer, the respondents cannot be made to suffer and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that for claiming compensation under Section 124A of 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. 10. Except the inquest report and the evidence of AW.1, there is absolutely no evidence to show about the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The case of the respondents is that the deceased had fallen from the train, which was running with a considerable speed. If that is the case, the deceased might have sustained some major injuries like fractures, cut injuries or abrasions. The inquest mediators, who were present at the time of conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased, did not find even a scratch on the deceased. 11. Furthermore, police did not send the dead body of the deceased to post-mortem examination. It is a serious lapse on the part of the police. But at the same time, unless the accidental death of the deceased is established by medical evidence, placing reliance on the other evidence is not proper and acceptable. When the railway- administration is seriously disputing about the cause of death of the deceased, the respondents ought to have examined the police officials as to the reason for not sending the dead body of the deceased to post- mortem examination. So, the respondents miserably failed to establish that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The doctor, who treated the deceased, was not examined to show that the deceased died of injuries sustained by him in an accident. 12. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. No ticket was seized from the dead body of the deceased at the time of conducting inquest. Similarly, no other evidence was brought on record to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in passenger train. When the two requirements under Section 124A of the Act have not been established, the question of granting compensation to the respondents/claimants does not arise. These aspects have been completely overlooked by the Tribunal and it came to the wrong conclusion in awarding compensation. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 05.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.231 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. The claim application of the respondents/claimants 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.920 OF 2006 April 06, 2011