IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 506 OF 2006 Between : Kolakonda Soudarya and others. …APPELLANTS A N D Union of India. …RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 506 of 2006 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 17.03.2006 in O.A.A.No.134 of 2000 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the appellants/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of K.Badrinath (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed 2. The appellants in the appeal are the applicants, and the respondent in the appeal is the respondent, 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 claim application stating that on 02.11.1999 the deceased was returning from Dornakal to Warangal by Singareni Passenger Train and when the train reached Guntratimadugu Railway Station for crossing of Train No.2713 Satavahana Express, the deceased went to the wash basin near the door in the compartment and while returning back to his seat, Satavahana Express came with high speed and due to jerk and speedy movement of the trains, the deceased fell down from the train and went underneath the speedy Satavahana Express, due to which he sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of Singareni Passenger; that a person by name K.Sarangapani had purchased the ticket and given to the deceased and also saw him boarding the Singareni Passenger are not true; that the deceased was not travelling by train and that death was due to his own criminal act and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicants are the dependents of the deceased Kolakonda Badrinath? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Singareni passenger train travelling from Dornakal to Warangal on 02.11.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from Singareni Passenger and coming under the Satavahana Express at Gundratimadugu Railway Station? 4. Relief and costs?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 ere got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, applicants filed the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that Ex.A.2-is the Final Report which would clearly go to show that there are no suspicious circumstances resulting the death of the deceased; that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased purchased a ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers; that the deceased died in an untoward incident and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/railways contended that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not established by the applicants; that the deceased was not a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; that the evidence of A.W.2 was disbelieved by the Tribunal after recording the reasons; that therefore, the Tribunal on proper appreciation of the evidence on record rightly dismissed the claim application and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. As far as untoward incident is concerned, no doubt, the dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track, but at the same time, it must be proved that the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down from the train carrying passengers, sustained injuries and died. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. Police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries. The word ‘untoward incident’ is defined under Section 123 (c ) of the Act, which reads as follows: “(1) (i) the commission of a trrorist act within the meaning of sub- section (1) of section (3) of the Terrorist and Distruptive Activite (Prevention) Act, 1987 ; or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot- out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” The case of the applicants is that the deceased was standing at the door of the compartment of the train i.e., Singareni passenger in which he was travelling and the train was stopped for crossing of opposite train and that the opposite Express train i.e., Sathavahana Passenger on the other track was coming with a speed, and because of the speed, there was a jerk to the train, in which the deceased was travelling and so, he fell down on the tracks of the train which was coming in the opposite direction and sustained injuries. The plea taken up by the applicants appears to be improbable. When a person standing at the door of a stationed train, it may not be possible for him to fall under the train, which was coming in the opposite direction by the side of the track, unless the person jumps out from the stationed train towards the train coming in the opposite direction. That is not the case here. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c ) of the Act is not established. 12. Furthermore, if really, the deceased was a bona fide passenger, police would have noticed the ticket at the time of conducting inquest. Police did not find any ticket on the dead body of the deceased to travel in a train carrying passengers. But, the applicants examined A.W.2, who said to be accompanied the deceased to the Railway Station. But, his name has not been shown as an eyewitness during the course of inquest. No doubt, A.W.2 was examined by police, before whom he stated that he along with the deceased went railway station and saw the deceased purchasing the ticket. According to him he gave a report to the police three or four days after contacting A.W.1 about missing of the deceased. That report was said to have been given to the Government Railway Police, Dornakal. The same was not produced before the Tribunal. He stated that he was an eyewitness to the incident. According to him he saw the deceased in the train. In the evidence it is stated that the deceased went to wash basin near the door of the compartment and when he was about to return to his seat, Satavahana Express was passing on the opposite track during that time with horn sound and at that time Singareni Passenger Train also moved suddenly with a jerk, as a result the deceased fell down accidentally and he was run over by Satavahana Express and was dragged to a considerable extent, sustained severe multiple injuries and died. A.W.2 was not an eyewitness to the incident. He filed the chief examination to show that he was as if an eyewitness to the occurrence. That shows his interestedness to help the applicants. Therefore, that is the reason why the Tribunal has not placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2 as the evidence of A.W.2 does not inspire any confidence. His evidence cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable. He can be put neither in the category of wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In such circumstances his evidence requires corroboration. No evidence was adduced to corroborate the evidence of A.W.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and that order needs no interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 YVL