IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.862 OF 2009 Date:27.09.2011 Between:- Veeramalla Subba Rao. ...Appellant And The Union of India ... Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.862 OF 2009 JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 05.08.2005 in O.A.A.No.298 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the appellant/applicant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Veeramalla Ramu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the applicant, and the respondent in the appeal 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 applicant filed the claim application stating that on 14.10.1999 while the deceased was travelling by Train No.7329 Simhadri Express, he had accidentally slipped and died at about 13:00 hours at KM No.556/48-557/1-2 posts down line in between Nidadavolu-Brahmanagudem Railway Stations. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent /Railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that as per the observations of the scene of untoward incident and circumstances it was revealed that the death was not on account of fall from any train as the train in question being a day time one; that if there was fall from the train, it would not have missed the notice of other co-passengers or the train Guard; that the Key man reported that the dead body of a male person aged about 40 years was lying at KM No.556/48-55 and 557/2 and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:- 1. Whether the applicant is the sole dependant of the deceased Veeramalla Ramu? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7239 Simhadri Express travelling from Nidadavolu to Visakhapatnam on 14.10.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Nidadavolu and Brahmanagudem? 4. To what relief? 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record dismissed the claim application holding that the fall of the deceased was not due to any untoward incident. Challenging the same, the applicant filed the present appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/applicant contended that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket; that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased purchased a ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers from Nidadavolu to Visakhapatnam and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/railways contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is unbelievable, that is the reason why the Tribunal has not placed an implicit reliance on his evidence and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. 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 requirements are proved, then the applicant is entitled for compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or the 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. 11. As far as untoward incident is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The Key man of the railways found the dead body of the deceased lying at KM No.556/48- 55 and 557/2. Police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 12. 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 not, the applicant did not produce any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Similarly, at the time of inquest, police did not find any ticket on the wearing apparels of the deceased except the post card showing the address of the deceased. The applicant examined A.W.2 who is no other than the brother of the deceased. The Tribunal has not placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2 for the reason that he was an interested witness. No doubt, A.W.2 is no other than the brother of the deceased, but the relationship or interestedness by itself is not a ground to discredit the testimony of the witness. His evidence has to be evaluated and appreciated like that of the evidence of any other witness. After evaluating and appreciating the evidence of a witness, if the evidence is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting such evidence. The evidence of A.W.2 is clear that he along with the deceased went to railway station and the deceased purchased a ticket worth at Rs.61/- so as to travel in Express train from Nidadavolu to Visakhapatnam. Except giving a suggestion that he did not accompany the deceased to Nidadavolu Railway Station and he did not see him at the Station, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of A.W.2 so as to disbelieve his evidence. The evidence of A.W.2 inspires confidence with regard to the deceased purchasing the ticket. Therefore, from the evidence, it is clear that the deceased purchased a ticket at the Station. The Head Constable who conducted investigation was examined as C.W.2, who categorically stated that he recorded the statement of A.W.2 as in Ex.C.2. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and therefore, the applicant is entitled to compensation. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 05.08.2005, in O.A.A.No.298 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad and granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of award till the date of realization to the appellant/applicant. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 YVL