IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 759 OF 2008 Between : The Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Rachakonda Renuka and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 759 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 31.03.2008, in O.A.A.No.47 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents-applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Rachakonda Venkanna (herein after referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. 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 brief facts are that, on 03.06.2001, the deceased while travelling by train No.323 Singareni passenger with a ticket No.07254 from Garla to Intekanne, fell down from the running train between Gundrathimadugu and Mahabubabad Railway Stations at Km.440/2-3 on up line, sustained severe head injury 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 the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; that in the First Information Report it is mentioned that an unknown person was run over at Km.441/1-2 between Gundrathimadugu and Mahabubabad Railway Stations as informed by a Key man; that it is not a case of fall from the train and it is also concluded by the panchayathdars in the inquest report; that the applicants filed a false case to get unlawful gain and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? a) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train No.323 Singareni fast passenger UP travelling from Garla to Entikanna on 03.06.2001? 2. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the Applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 4. To what relief ? 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, Applicant No.1 herself examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-railways contended that the ticket that was found in the pant pocket of the dead body of the deceased was planted; that no eye witnesses were examined to show that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the train; that due to negligence or criminal act on the part of the deceased only the accident had taken place; and so, the Railway administration is not liable to pay any compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-applicants contended that during the course of inquest police found a ticket in the pant pocket of the dead body of the deceased and the same was noted in the inquest report as well as in the final report; that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train with a valid ticket; that the deceased died in an untoward incident and therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. For claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), two requirements are to be satisfied viz., in case of death the appellants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. 10. The death of the deceased is not in dispute before this Court. It is also not in dispute that the dead body was dragged to some extent and admittedly the dead body was noticed by the Key man of the Railways. After coming to know about the incident, police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased wherein it was opined that the deceased died as a result of accidental fall from the running train. The Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased categorically stated that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained in a train accident. 11. With regard to the second aspect i.e., whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not, it is not in dispute that during the course of investigation, police found a ticket in the pant pocket of the dead body of the deceased and the same was incorporated in the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that objective findings of the police during course of investigation are admissible in evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was a not bona fide passenger travelling in the said train with a valid ticket. The contention that there was negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that no such defence is available to the railway administration. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under provisio to Section 124-A of the Act. The case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided above, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 31.03.2008 in O.A.A.No.47 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 09, 2011 YVL