IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1331 OF 2008 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Smt D.Veeramma and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1331 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 09.07.2008 in O.A.A.No.345 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of D.Naganna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of order till the date of actual payment. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal are the applicants, 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 the claim application stating that on 25/26.12.2002 the deceased in order to go from Giddaluru to Cumbum, boarded train No.7226 Amaravati Express in general compartment. Due to heavy rush in the compartment, the deceased was standing near the door and due to sudden jerks and jolts of the said train, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at Cumbum Railway Station, sustained serious injuries and died. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the incident does not come under the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’); that the applicants failed to prove that they are the dependents of the deceased under Section 123 (b) of the Act 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 the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7226 Amaravati express travelling from Giddalulr to Cumbum on 25/26.12.2002? 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?” 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, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased died in an untoward incident and that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and therefore, the applicants are entitled to compensation. Challenging the same, Railways filed the present appeal. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/respondent contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; that in the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended A.W.1 categorically stated that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and that the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal. 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 a 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 travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. With regard to the first aspect, it has to be seen it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The deceased was travelling by train No.7226 Amaravathi Express from Giddaluru to Cumbum in general compartment. Due to heavy rush in the compartment, the deceased was standing at the door of the compartment. While he was travelling in the said train, due to sudden jerks and jolts of the train, he slipped and fell down from the running train at Cumbum Railway Station, sustained injuries and died on the spot. The dead body of the deceased was found by the Railway officials and informed the same to the railway police. Police after registering the case, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. 13. With regard to the second aspect, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket or pass, the word ‘passenger’ is defined under explanation to Section 124-A of the Act, which reads as follows: “For the purpose of this section," passenger" includes- (i) a railway servent on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident”. From the above definition, it is clear that if a person wants to travel in a train carrying passengers, he must possess a valid pass or ticket. No doubt, during the course of inquest, police did not find any ticket on the wearing apparels of the deceased. Similarly no other evidence was adduced to show that the deceased had purchased a ticket so as to travel in a train carrying passengers. According to A.W.1 the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. Admittedly A.W.1 was not present when the deceased was purchasing the ticket. When she was not present at the time of deceased purchasing the ticket, it is highly improbable to believe her evidence that the deceased was a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Except the oral interested testimony of A.W.1, no other evidence was adduced to show that the deceased had purchased a ticket so as to travel in a passenger train carrying passengers. When the initial onus of proof stands on the applicants to show that the deceased was bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket has not been discharged, the question of granting compensation does not arise. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and, is accordingly, set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 09.07.2008 in O.A.A.No.345 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J OCTOBER 10, 2011 YVL