THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.805 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 05.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.85 of 2001, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of G. Sitaramulu (herein after 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: On the night of 25.03.2001, the deceased along with his nephew, Rongala Ramu, started from Eluru to go to Vizianagaram, by purchasing two tickets for train No.471, Vizianagaram – Raigada passenger. During the night journey, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at KM.498/21 in between Denduluru and Bhimadolu Railway Station and as a result, he died on the spot. Hence, the claim petition. 3. The Respondent – Railways denied the allegations and stated that the night patrol man on duty gave information to ASM, Eluru Railway Station at 03:40 hours on 26.03.2001 that he found a male dead body at KM.498/21 (between Denduluru to Bhimadole) and that information was passed to the Government Railway Police. The alleged untoward incident might be due to travel by standing at the door side of the train and such travel on door side is prohibited and punishable. Hence, the respondent – railways prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the applicant is the dependant of the deceased B. Sitaramulu? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.471 passenger travelling from Eluru to Vizianagaram on 25.03.2001? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Dendluru and Bhimadole Railway Station? 4. To what relief?” 5. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicant, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were got marked. The concerned GRP was summoned to produce the final report, which was marked as Ex.C1. 6. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased died in an untoward incident as a result of accidental fall from the train, and accordingly, granted compensation to the applicant. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the respondent - railways. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the police did not seize any ticket at the time of conducting inquest from the dead of the deceased; that the respondent failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that the interested testimony of AW.2 cannot be accepted so as to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. None appears for the respondent, in spite of service of notice. 10. 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. 11. The fact that the deceased died in an untoward incident is not in dispute. Post-mortem Examination Report, Ex.A3, would clearly go to show that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident. Admittedly, no ticket was seized from the dead body of the deceased during the course of inquest. The initial burden is on the respondent to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. To prove the said aspect, AW.2, who is the nephew of the deceased, stated that he purchased two tickets to travel in a passenger train for himself and his uncle and kept the tickets with him; that for want of accommodation, both of them boarded in two different compartments and at the destination, he did not find the deceased; that on enquiry, he came to know that the deceased died in between Dendluru and Bhimadole Railway Station. If the evidence of AW.2 is to be accepted as true and correct, it can be said that he himself purchased two tickets for himself and the deceased. It is quite possible for AW.2 to board another compartment because of lack of accommodation in the compartment in which the deceased boarded. After getting down at the destination point, while leaving the station, AW.2 handed over the tickets to the Ticket Collector. Practically, the evidence of AW.2, which is to the effect that he purchased the ticket for himself and the deceased; that they boarded two different compartments of the same train and that he handed over the tickets at the destination point to the Ticket Collector, remained unchallenged. Once a fact has been stated by a witness and the same is not denied or disputed by the opposite party, it can be safely said that such a fact is admitted. When the evidence of AW.2 remained unchallenged, placing reliance on his evidence by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. As the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of AW.2, it can be safely said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train and that he died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference as the appreciation of evidence is based upon proper admissible evidence. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 28, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.805 OF 2006 Between: Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Gullipilli Yellama ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.805 OF 2006 March 28, 2011