IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.860 OF 2008 Date:06.04.2011 Between:- The Union of India, rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Muneera Begum and others .. Respondents/Appellants JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred by the appellant/Railways challenging the order, dated 06.06.2008, in O.A.A.No.160 of 2003 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 read with Section 124-A 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 Mohd.Iqbal was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant No.2 is the son, and claimant No.3 is the daughter of Mohd.Iqbal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), a Police Constable and resident of Yakutpura, Hyderabad. They have filed the claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) to grant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased caused in an untoward incident. 3. The respondent/Railways denied the case of the applicants stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and as per Guard of passenger Train No.359, there was no report of untoward incident of any body falling from his train on 20.04.2003 at Kachiguda Station. However, a passenger had informed the station authorities at Kachiguda about a male dead body aged about 40 years lying on the track on platform No.3 near Carriage Work Shop Office at Kachiguda Station, but there is no eye witness to speak about the fall from train. It is not a case of death due to accidental fall from train in an untoward incident and hence, not liable to pay any compensation, and thereby, prayed to dismiss the 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 Md.Iqbal? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.359 passenger travelling from Sitaphalmandi to Kachiguda? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Kachiguda Railway Station on 20.04.2003? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim Rs.10,00,000/-? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Railways contended that it is not a case of the deceased falling from a running train so as to bring the case under the purview of untoward incident and that the ticket has not been produced by the respondents/claimants and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. None appears for the respondents/claimants. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions 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. 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 appellant-railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned under Section 124-A of the Act. 10. No doubt, the respondents/claimants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train but at the same time, the police, while conducting inquest, found ticket with the deceased and the ticket number has been duly incorporated in the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the Investigating Officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. As the ticket number has been clearly mentioned in the inquest report and the same is not shown to be incorrect number or invalued ticket, it can be safely presumed that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. Now the question is whether he died in an untoward incident. The First Information Report lodged by the first informant would clearly go to show that due to the sudden jerk of the train, the deceased accidentally fell from the train and sustained multiple injuries all over the body and as a result, he died. The dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries. It is not a case falls under anyone of the clauses to proviso 124-A of the Act and further, there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the railway administration to show that the death of the deceased was not as a result of untoward incident. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record in a right prospective, granted compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 6th April, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.860 OF 2008 Date:06.04.2011 AMD