THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 644 of 2006 JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/railways challenging the order dated 03.04.2006 in O.A.A. No.173 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the respondents/claimants was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. The respondents/claimants filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one V.Sathi Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who is their son, in an untoward incident. It is their case that on 12.05.2002, the deceased, who was traveling in general compartment of train no.7048 from Secunderabad to Rajahmundry, accidentally slipped and fell down from running train between Bonakal and Motamarri railway stations and succumbed to the injuries. 3. The appellant/railways denied the case of the claimants and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and that as per the enquiries with the Guard of the said train, no untoward incident had taken place by train no.7048 on that day, and so, the fall, if any, is due to rash or negligent act of the deceased himself, and hence, it is prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. The Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 5. During pendency of the claim application, the claimant no.2, who is mother of the deceased, died, and so, entire compensation amount was ordered to be paid to the claimant no.1, who is father of the deceased. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident and that due to the negligence of the deceased only, the incident had taken place, and that when there is negligence on the part of the deceased himself, the claim for compensation by his legal heirs does not arise, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train and he died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the passenger train, and that the information with regard to a person falling from a passenger train was given by the Driver of the passenger train, who sent a message to R.W.1, who in turn informed about the incident to police, and that, upon considering the material on record, the Claims Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, 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 traveling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the respondent/railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 9. It is not in dispute that police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and found a valid ticket to travel in the passenger train. There cannot be any dispute that objective findings of the investigating officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. Dead body of the deceased was traced by the side of the railway track. In view of the fact that the ticket was found in the dead body of the deceased, it can be safely presumed that he is a bona fide passenger. Now, it has to be seen whether the deceased died in an untoward incident or not. Basing on the information given by the Driver of the passenger train, R.W.1 sent a message to police. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem examination which shows that the death of the deceased was as a result of multiple injuries. Therefore, the two ingredients required under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 are established beyond preponderance of probability. When it is the case of the appellants/railway administration that the incident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased or the case falls under any one of the clauses under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the burden is on them to establish the same. There is absolutely no evidence adduced by the railway administration to show that the incident had taken place due to negligence of the deceased or that the case falls under any one of the clauses in Section 124A of the Act. The Claims Tribunal has considered these aspects in right perspective and granted the compensation and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. . 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 03.04.2006 in O.A.A. No.173 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. No costs. --------------------- 22.3.2011 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 644 of 2006 22.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 644 of 2006 22.3.2011 Between: The Union of India rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Appellant And Visarapu Konda Babu & another …Respondents