IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.951 OF 2006 Date:09.09.2011 Between:- Veeramalla Anjamma and others ..Appellants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 05.05.2006, in O.A.A.No.48 of 2001 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 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 Veeramalla Anjamma (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 31.08.2000/01.09.2000, was dismissed. 2 . The appellants/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that on 31.08.2000, while the deceased was travelling from Guntur to Secunderabad by train No.7053 and when the train was reaching Miryalguda on the early hours of 01.09.2000, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at Km.No.115/15 in between Miryalguda and Kondrapoul stations, sustained injuries and died on the spot. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicants and stated that the Inquest Report shows negligent and criminal act of the deceased and therefore, this is not a case of untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act and therefore, they have no liability for payment of any compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Veeramalla Srinivas Goud? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No.7053 Chennai-Hyderabad Express, travelling from Guntur to Miryalguda in the intervening night of 31.08/01.09.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Kondrapoul and Miryalguda Railway stations on 19.02.2000? 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. Legal representative certificate is marked as Ex.A-6 in this Court by consent. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicant. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident was established, as the police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased; that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train and hence, he was a bona fide passenger; and therefore, prays to set aside the impugned order and award compensation. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that since there was negligence on the part of the deceased, as he was sleeping at the door of the compartment, he fell down and died, and therefore, the legal heirs are not entitled to claim the compensation for the negligence on the part of the deceased; that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application 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 claimants 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 passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, they have to prove that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The death of the deceased is not in dispute, as the dead body was found by the side of the track in between Miryalguda and Kondrapoul stations. On coming to know about the incident, the police registered a case and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. After inquest, 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 the injuries sustained by him. Ex.A-5 is the original ticket filed by the applicants to show that the deceased was having a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train from Guntur to Miryalguda. That ticket is not shown to be invalid ticket. Therefore, when these two ingredients under Section 124-A of the Act are proved, the applicants are entitled to compensation. The railway administration wants to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act then the onus of proof is on railways. No evidence of what so ever is adduced by railways in this aspect. The defence of negligence is not available to the railway administration inasmuch as Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The Tribunal, basing on the opinion expressed by the mediators in the inquest report that the deceased was sleeping at the door of the compartment and fell down, held that it amounts to self-infliction. The opinion expressed by mediators is based on information given by witnesses which is hearsay and not admissible under law. In the first instance, the opinion of the inquest mediators is not admissible in evidence. In what manner the deceased died or whether he was sitting at the door of the compartment or not come under the ambit of Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There cannot be any dispute that a document like inquest report consists of two parts. One is admissible evidence and another is inadmissible evidence. The objective findings of the Investigating Officer and mediators are admissible evidence whereas the information received by the Investigating Officer from the witnesses is not admissible. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on Column No.15 of opinion expressed by the inquest mediators, which is not admissible under law. 12. The Tribunal held that no documentary evidence is produced by the appellants/applicants to show that they are the dependents of the deceased. As per order, dated 09-09-2011, in C.M.A.M.P. No.458 of 2011, the legal heir certificate produced by the applicants, is marked in this Court by mutual consent. Therefore, it can be held that the appellants are legal representatives of the deceased. Hence, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only). Appellant No.1 is entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.75,000/- each. The amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of Award till the date of realization. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 05.05.2006, in O.A.A.No.48 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Exhibits marked:- On behalf of the appellants/applicants Ex.A-6: Legal heir certificate _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 09th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.951 OF 2006 Date:09.09.2011 AMD