THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 784 of 2006 JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the order dated 28.10.2005 in O.A.A. No.50 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The appellant/claimant filed the O.A.A. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Butchi Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who is her husband, in an untoward incident. It is her case that the deceased purchased a train journey ticket to travel from Guntur to Pedakurapadu and boarded train no.421 Guntur-Sattenapalli passenger in general compartment on 24.12.1998, and that when the train was passing through Lingamguntla railway station, the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train in Lingamguntla railway station during night hours on 24.12.1998 and as a result both his legs were cut and he died on 25.12.1998 while undergoing treatment. 3. The respondent/railways filed their written statement denying the case of the claimant and stating that in the First Information Report lodged by the brother of deceased, it is specifically stated that he did not know the cause of the accident, and that the passenger trains do not have a stop at Lingamguntla and so due to negligent act of the deceased to get down from the running train at Lingamgutla railway station, the incident must have occurred; that the deceased is not bona fide passenger travelling in the train in the absence of any journey ticket, and hence, it is prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues. 1)Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased Yerrameni Butchi Babu ? 2)Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No.421 Guntur-Sattenapalli passenger ? 3) Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Lingamguntla railway station? 4) To what relief ? 5. The Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held all the issues against the claimant and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant. 6. Heard both sides. 7. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, 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 traveling in the passenger train. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the respondent/railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the claimants falls under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 8. To substantiate the case of the claimant, she herself was examined as A.W.1. She is no other than wife of the deceased person. Admittedly, she is not an eye-witness to the incident and therefore her evidence cannot be relied upon for the purpose of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train. 9. A.W.2 is projected as an eye-witness to the incident. On his own showing, it can be said safely that he was not an eye-witness to the incident, because after lapse of six years, for the first time, he came to the court and testified about his presence at the time of the untoward incident. Admittedly, he was not examined by police. If really, he is an eye-witness to the incident, he would have been examined by police either during inquest or during investigation of the case. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal rightly has not placed reliance on the evidence of A.W 2. There are no other reasons to deviate from the findings of the Claims Tribunal with regard to disbelieving the evidence of A.W. 2. 10. Further more, when police conducted inquest, police have not seized any ticket from the dead body of the deceased, to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train. The other documents filed by the petitioner would not in any manner help the case of the claimant. Ex.A2 is the inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the investigating officer during the course of inquest are only admissible under law. But, the information received from some other persons, which is incorporated in the inquest report, is inadmissible. Therefore, except the fact as to the opinion of inquest mediators relating to apparent cause of death of the deceased, the other recitals in the inquest report which are based upon the information given by some other persons, are not admissible under law. In the absence of any other evidence, it cannot be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in the passenger train and that he died in an untoward incident. The claimant miserably failed to establish the aforesaid two requirements so as to claim compensation. Considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly disallowed the claim of the claimant, and the findings of the Claims Tribunal are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. --------------------- 23.3.2011 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 784 of 2006 23.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 784 of 2006 23.3.2011 Between: Yerramneni Malleswari …Appellant And The Union of India rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad …Respondent