IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1221 of 2008 Date: 14.09.2011 Between: J. Sujatha and 3 others. .....Petitioners AND The Union of India, rep. By its General Manager, S.C Railway, Secunderabad. ....Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1221 of 2008 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 10.05.2001, in O.A.A.No.96 of 1998, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the applicants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of J. Raghavendra, (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 1.7.1997, the deceased went to Guntakal on cooli work from there to go to Gooty to see his wife, the deceased boarded the train No.6337 Rajkot – Cochin express in general compartment holding a train journey ticket from Guntakal to Gooty, bearing No.95293. When the train was entering into the Gooty Railway Station, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train on platform No.1 due to jerks and sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot at about 21 hours. 3. The respondent railways administration filed its written statement while denying the averments made in the application stated that the death was caused at Gooty station due to jerks of the train, and that the respondent denied that the deceased was a boanfide passenger of train No.6337 of 1.7.1997 in as much as no journey ticket with serial No.95293 has been issued at Guntakal on 1.7.1997, that the applicants are not entitled for any compensation. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicant is dependent of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident? 4. To what relief? 5. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the application filed by the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the applicants. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute and that during the course of inquest, the police found the ticket on the body of the deceased and the police seized the same, that from the recitals of the inquest report, it can be said that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and he prays to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. 8. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent (railways) contended that though the deceased died in an untoward incident, the ticket number as mentioned in the inquest report is found to be incorrect as it was not issued on 1.7.1997 which is the date of accident and hence the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application of the applicants, that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 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 with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The initial burden is on the applicants to establish that the deceased was a bonafied passenger and that he died in an untoward incident. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident as he fallen from the passenger train accidentally and sustained injuries. The body of the deceased was crushed. The police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and during the inquest, the inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in a train accident. The doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased also opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained in an accident. 10. The Tribunal has dismissed the application on the ground that the ticket number as noted in inquest report is not a valid ticket. During the course of inquest, the police seized a ticket which contain bloodstains and they noted down the number of the ticket in the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the investigating officer are admissible under law. The investigating officer though stated that there was no scope or possibility for noting down the incorrect number, but in the cross-examination he stated that because the ticket was found with bloodstains, there was possibility of noting the ticket number wrongly. But the fact remains that the deceased was travelling after purchasing the ticket since he was a cooli working at Guntakal. He purchased a ticket to go to Gooty, his native place. So finding of the ticket on the dead body of the deceased would clearly go to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with valid ticket. 11. Nodoubt, thee are some lapses on the part of the investigating officer in not correctly noting down the number of the ticket. Further, it is the duty of the investigating officer to preserve the ticket or to send the ticket to the court or to return the ticket to the dependents of the deceased. Such an action has not been taken by the investigating officer. For the faulty or improper investigation conducted by the investigating officer, the applicants cannot be made to suffer. Therefore, the possibility of noting down the ticket number wrongly in the inquest report ticket, cannot be ruled out in view of the fact that the deceased sustained a crush injury and thereby there must be lot of hemmerage from the injury. The deceased would have kept the ticket in his shirt pocket. When the deceased sustained a crush injury on the chest, there is every possibility that the ticket must have been stained with blood and therefore, the ticket number was not visible properly to the investigating officer at the time of inquest. Therefore, considering these aspects, the ticket found on the body of the deceased suggests that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the applicants is allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till date of realisation. Out of the said compensation amount each of the claimants is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/-. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J Date:14.09.2011. Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1221 of 2008 Date: 14.09.2011 Gk.