IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.769 OF 2006 Date:19.09.2011 Between:- Koyya Sanyasamma and others. ...Appellants And The Union of India. ... Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 05.06.2006, in O.A.A.No.139 of 1999, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the appellants/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of husband of 1st applicant namely Koyya Suryanarayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed. 2. The appellants in the C.M.A. are the applicants, and respondent in the C.M.A. is the respondent before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed O.A.A. stating that on 04.05.1999, the deceased in order to go from Vijayawada to Vizianagaram boarded train No.7046 Hyderabad-Howrah East Coast Express with a ticket bearing No.58548. While he was travelling in the second class general compartment and when the train was halting at Duvvada Railway Station, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train due to jerks, suffered severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/ Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that there was no untoward incident had happened by train No.7406 at Duvvada Railway Station on 04.05.1999; that the deceased was not died in an untoward incident; that the burden is on the applicants to prove that the deceased died as a bona fide passenger travelling in a train and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Koyya Suryanarayana? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7046 Hyderabad-Howrah Express traveling from Vijayawada to Vizianagaram on 04.05.99? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Duvvada Railway Station? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were got marked. Exs.C.1 and C.2 were marked through the Court. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; and that his fall is not in an untoward incident and that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicants. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is proper, correct and legal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and he died in an untoward incident; that during the course of inquest, police found ticket bearing No.58548 to travel from Vijayawada to Vizianagaram and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent/railways contended that the ticket as noticed by police during the course of inquest was issued on 03.06.2000 but not on 04.05.1999; that the initial burden stands on the applicants have not been discharged; that therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly dismissed the claim application and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 11. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. As far as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track near Duvvada Railway Station, where there was no scheduled halt for the train in which the deceased was travelling. It is the case of the applicants that the deceased was travelling in a Express train from Vijayawada to Vizianagaram. It is not known how the dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track near the Railway Station where there is no scheduled halt. But the fact remains there is possibility of deceased falling from the running train. The Government Railway Police after receipt of information about the death of the deceased, registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. The mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him. Similarly, the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination also opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the applicants established that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 13. With regard to the second aspect i.e., whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or not, the applicants have not produced either direct or circumstantial evidence to show that the deceased had purchased a ticket and boarded train No.7046 in order to go from Vijayawada to Vizianagaram. But, the applicants are relying upon the ticket number as noted 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, if they appear to be correct. The objective finding as noted by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panchas in the inquest report is ticket bearing No.58548 to travel from Vijayawada to Vizianagaram. But, as police registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C., the original inquest report has to be sent to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer, who has got jurisdiction. Admittedly, police have not sent the inquest report to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer, as seen from the endorsement made by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.C.1. Ex.C.2-is the case diary, which would disclose that the original ticket was not available in the case diary. If really the Investigating Officer found a ticket on the clothes of the body of the deceased, then certainly, the same should have been seized and made on a part of case diary. Therefore, not sending the original inquest report by Police to the Mandal Revenue Officer gives rise to a suspicion with regard to correctness of the inquest report that was produced by the applicants before the Tribunal. Even assuming for a moment that the ticket number found in the inquest report is correct, but R.W.2 was examined to show that the ticket number No.58548 was not issued on 05.04.1999 as that series has not yet been commenced at all, but it was commenced w.e.f. 03.06.2000, nearly one year after the incident. This can be seen from the daily ticket collection book of the year 2000 that no such ticket was issued on the date of the incident. Therefore, police with a view to help the dependents of the applicants might have noted some number, which found to be incorrect number. As the initial burden stands on the applicants have not been discharged, the question of granting compensation under Section 124-A of the Act does not arise. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application and the said order needs no interference by this court. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 YVL