IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.612 of 2011 Date:18.10.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And T.Vijaya Lakshmi and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 09.02.2011, in O.A.A.No.61 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 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 Talasila Brammeswara Rao (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 18.02.2002, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the claim application stating that they are the wife and daughter of the deceased; that on 18.02.2002, the deceased along with his daughter and son-in-law came to Vizianagaram railway station to go to Miryalaguda and purchased travel ticket for train No.7615 (Palasa to Kachiguda Visakha express) and travelled by the said train; that the deceased got down at Tanuku railway station for taking drinking water and after taking drinking water and getting into the train, the train started suddenly and deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the train and sustained injuries, and while taking treatment in Tanuku Government Hospital, due to the injuries caused to him, he died. 3. The appellant/Railways filed written statement denying the averments of the claim application and stated that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 123(c) or 124-A of the Act and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and further submitted that the alleged incident, if any, was caused by the criminal acts of the deceased and such acts disentitle the applicants from claiming compensation for such self inflicted injuries, and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7615 Visakha express travelling from Palasa to Kachiguda on 18.02.2002? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-5. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and that he died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that no eye witness was examined to speak about the incident; that when the deceased had fallen accidentally, he would have been noticed by some passengers in the compartment and that the relatives of the deceased, who were travelling along with the deceased, would have got down in the next station and therefore, in the absence of evidence of any eye witness, the applicants are not entitled to compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the tickets-Exs.A-1 and A-2, which are the valid tickets have been seized from the wearing apparel of the deceased during the course of inquest by the police; that the untoward incident is not in dispute; that the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation; that 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 applicants 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 train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body of the deceased was found at the end of the platform. Police registered a case and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and the mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries sustained by him all over the body. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died as a result of the multiple injuries. Even the railway administration is not seriously disputing about the death of the deceased in an untoward incident. 12. With regard to the aspect of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not, Exs.A-1 and A-2 are the original EFT tickets filed by the applicants. They show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. As a matter of fact, those tickets were seized from the dead body of the deceased during the course of inquest. If really the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, the tickets would not have been found in the wearing apparel of the deceased. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. 13. No doubt, son-in-law and daughter were travelling along with the deceased, but they have not noticed the deceased falling accidentally from the running train. When they did not find the deceased in the compartment, they returned back to the station where the deceased had fallen down. Therefore, the circumstances do not indicate that it is a case of self infliction. Self inflicted injury can be said to be an intentional act of harming oneself. In other words, it is a deliberate self harm. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 18th October, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.612 of 2011 Date:18.10.2011 AMD