THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.989 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 13.07.2005 in O.A.A.No.197 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition, filed under Sections 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with 124-A and 125 of the Act, by the respondents/applicants, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased, was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: One V. Raghu Praveen (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was a resident of Tenali working as Generator Operator at Bapatla. To attend the duty as a daily commuter, he used to travel from Tenali to Bapatla and back. He purchased monthly season ticket bearing No.14567399 for the period 24.06.2002 to 23.07.2002. On 15.07.2002, the deceased started from Tenali to go to Bapatla and at the time of return journey, he along with one S. Srinivasa Reddy, boarded train No.7053, Chennai to Hyderabad Express in a general compartment. Since the train was crowded, the deceased stood near the door way of the compartment and when the train was passing between Nidubrolu and Chunduru R.S. at KM No.383/34, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train, and he died on the spot due to fatal injuries. On report given by the Deputy Station Superintendent, police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The panch witnesses opined that the deceased had accidentally fallen down from the running train. 3. Railways filed written statement denying the allegations and stating that it is not known as to how the applicants obtained the ticket from the deceased. It is further stated that the Keyman Unit No.8 reported that he found a male dead body aged 30 years at KM No.383/34 between Tsunduru and Nidubrolu down line and that the dead body was found lying beside the track. On 16.07.2002, the Guard of train No.7053, Chennai to Guntur Express, reported that there was no information about the occurrence of mishap much less chain pulling. So, it cannot be said that the deceased died in an untoward incident. Hence, the respondent - railways prays to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicants are the dependents of the deceased Vemula Raghu Praveen? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.7053 Chennai - Hyderabad Exp., travelling from Bapatla to Tenali on 15.07.2002 with season ticket? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Nidubrolu and Chunduru Rly. Stations? 4. To what relief?” 5. During trial, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were got marked on behalf of the applicants, and on behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined, but no documentary evidence was got marked. 6. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen accidentally from the moving train due to sudden jerk of the train and died in an untoward incident; and that he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train with a valid monthly season ticket, and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident; that the evidence of AW.2 cannot be accepted in view of the fact that he has not given any report to the Station Master after reaching the destination at Tenali; and that, shorn of the evidence of AW.2, there is no other evidence to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that AW.2 was present at the time of the incident; that immediately after getting down at Tenali, he went to the house of the deceased to inform about the incident to the relatives of the deceased and there is nothing unusual for him to rush to the relatives of the deceased; that perhaps, that is the reason why the Tribunal placed reliance on the evidence of AW.2 and came to the conclusion that the deceased died in an untoward incident and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. What is untoward incident is defined under Section 124A of the Act, when a person dies or sustains injuries, travelling as a passenger in a train, Railways are liable to compensate him. The word ‘passenger’ defined under the said provision reads that a person travelling in the train with a valid ticket. For the purpose of invoking Section 124A of the Act, the burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he died in an untoward incident while travelling in a train. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased was holder of a monthly season ticket and he was a bona fide passenger travelling from Bapatla to Tenali in train No.7053, Chennai to Hyderabad Express in general compartment. As the compartment was full of passengers, both the deceased and AW.2 sat near the doorway of compartment. While the train was passing between Nidubrolu and Chunduru at KM No.383/34, due to sudden jerk of the compartment, the deceased had fallen down from the train, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Immediately after receipt of information, police registered a case and investigated into. Police also held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. During the time of holding inquest on the dead body of the deceased, they seized monthly season ticket from the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as he had fallen down from the running train. The Tribunal placed reliance on the evidence of AW.2, who was a co-passenger travelling along with the deceased at the time of the incident. 12. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of AW.2, because he did not give any report to the Station Master concerned or try to pull the chain or give report to the Station Superintendent, Tenali, with regard to the deceased falling from the running train. According to AW.2, he rushed to the house of the deceased so as to inform the relatives of the deceased about the falling of the deceased from the running train. Reaction to an incident varies from man to man. There cannot be any fixed set of norms with regard to the reaction of the human being to a particular incident. One may go to the house of the relatives to inform about the incident or try to pull the chain or go to the police station to lodge a complaint or proceed to the Station Master to inform about the incident. So, in this case, AW.2 rightly proceeded to the house of the deceased so as to inform about the incident to the relatives of the deceased. As nobody was there in the house of the deceased and as it was late in the night, next day he informed about the incident to the relatives of the deceased. So, not giving report to the Station Superintendent at Tenali by AW.2, immediately after he got down from the train, cannot be said to be a ground to infer that he did not witness the incident. Furthermore, he was examined as an eyewitness to the incident, when the police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, during the course of investigation, it is clear that AW.2 was an eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of AW.2 to arrive at a conclusion that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse. It is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned judgment. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 08, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.989 OF 2005 Between: The Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Vemula Subhadra and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.989 OF 2005 September 08, 2010