IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE.17-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.479 OF 2006 Between: Dekka Balamani and three others. --- Appellants/ Applicants. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.479 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Appellants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Tribunal Act”) against order of dismissal dated 09-03-2006, passed in O.A.A. No.16 of 2002, filed under Section 16 of the Tribunal Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the act’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, the Tribunal’) consequent on the death of one D. Ramulu (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). 2. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.16 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The applicants are the wife and children of the deceased. On 15-11-2001 the deceased boarded train No.7663 MMR – KCG Express to go to Vikarabad from Bidar and while alighting at the Vikarabad railway station, he slipped and fell down from the train and sustained injuries and died on the spot and he was a bona fide passenger of the train. Further, the applicants being his wife and children and dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The respondent filed his written statement claiming that a message was given by the Station Superintendent of Vikarabad Railway station to the Government Railway Police, Vikarabad, stating that a male person aged about 30 years old was run over at the end of the platform which is meant the train was already moving at a speed and therefore the attempt of the deceased to alight from the moving train has to be considered as causing self inflicted injuries while denying the claims of the applicants in all respects. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased? 2) Whether on 15-11-2001 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3) Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section of 123 (c) of the Railways Act? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined herself as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R., Inquest report, Postmortem certificate, Death certificate and Legal heir certificate. On behalf of the respondent, the Guard of the train was examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R-1 Guards Rough Journal. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and the remaining three issues in favour of the respondent and against the applicants and dismissed the claim on the ground that the injuries caused would amount to causing of self inflicted injuries and no ticket was found from the deceased. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred by the applicants. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that when the deceased entered the platform for the purpose of aboarding the train, it is to be presumed that he did so having purchased a valid ticket and it is for the Railways to prove that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train depending upon the relevant circumstances of the case. 9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1) Whether substantial evidence is there to the effect that the deceased happened to be a bona fide passenger of the train? 2 ) Whether the Tribunal examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and its order is sustainable or not? 10. It is pertinent to note here that no eye witness to the incident was examined before the Tribunal. Further a report was given to the Government Railway Police after the accident about the incident, basing upon which the F.I.R was registered at 09-00 a.m. on the same day. Further Ex.A-2 provides that in between 09-30 a.m. to 11-30 a.m. inquest was conducted over the dead body but then no ticket was traced. It is important that without delay F.I.R. statement was given and the inquest over the dead body was conducted. If at all he was holding a valid ticket the same would have been traced from his wearing apparel at the time of inquest. There is no ground to say that he tried to purchase the ticket but he could not because he got no time to aboard the train and hence he ran to the train to aboard it. No presumption can be drawn only basing upon certain set of circumstances brought to light. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is only to be deemed that he tried to aboard the train without purchasing any valid ticket to travel by the train. 11. When a person aboards a train without a ticket and prevailing circumstances does not provide that he got any intention to purchase a ticket to do so, it is enough to say that he is not a bona fide passenger of the train and then there is nothing more for the Railways to prove that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train. If he falls down from a reservation compartment then certainly the Railways have to produce relevant chart to disprove that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train. It is significant that in all the cases of this nature such claims are made on the basis of general compartment tickets. On behalf of the Railways it is advanced that on the basis of such deaths, false claims are being made planting Railway general compartment tickets and other material. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Appeal is not tenable and hence it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 17-02-2011. Dsh.