IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1085 OF 2009 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Gopalam and others and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1085 of 2009 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.08.2009 in O.A.A.No.11 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Itikaala Mariyamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the date of actual payment. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal 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 applicants filed the claim application stating that on 04.02.2003 the deceased along with applicant No.1 went to Gudivada railway station and purchased a passenger train journey ticket from Gudivada to Guntakoduru and boarded train No.104 Gudivada- Narasapur passenger in general compartment and was standing at the door of the compartment. While they were travelling in the said train, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train between the platform and train, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that the incident does not attract the provisions of Section 123 ( c) (2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’); that as per the information of the Deputy Station Superintendent, Gudivada, it was revealed that a lady, aged about 40 years, fell down from train No.104 while entering the moving train and died and so, it is not a case of an untoward; that no ticket was found on her body, incident; and so, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the applicants are not dependents of the deceased and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-? 5. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A6 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incident, the applicants being dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation. Challenging the same, Railways filed the present appeal. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/respondent contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers; that there is no evidence to show that the deceased purchased a ticket and boarded the train and therefore, Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.1 who is no other than husband of the deceased ,would clearly go to show that he purchased a ticket for both of them and boarded the train; that as the deceased accidentally fell down from the train, the possibility of loosing the ticket cannot be ruled out; that there is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.1 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 applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 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. During the course of inquest A.W.1 was examined as an eyewitness to the incident. The only point to be decided in this appeal is whether the deceased was bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or not with a valid ticket. No doubt, the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, but, at the same time, the applicants examined A.W.1, who is no other than husband of the deceased. He categorically stated that he purchased the ticket for himself and the deceased and kept the ticket with the deceased. While the deceased was trying to board the train, she accidentally slipped and fell down from the train in between platform and train, sustained injuries and died on the spot. . The presence of A.W.1 at the time of deceased boarding the train and also at the time of deceased falling from the train is also established. If the evidence of A.W.1 is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting his evidence. Even after lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of A.W.1. The evidence of A.W.1 is very clear that he purchased a ticket and handed over the same to the deceased. There is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.1. As the deceased had accidentally fallen from the train, the possibility of loosing the ticket after falling from the train cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J OCTOBER 10, 2011 YVL