THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.1053 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.06.2009 passed in O.A.A.No.293 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents/applicants seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs for the death of one Ramisetty Subrahmanyam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who died in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train No.430 Rajahmundry – Vijayawada Fast Passenger in between Tadepalligudem and Badampudi railway stations due to jerks of the train while travelling in general compartment holding a valid ticket to travel from Tadepalligudem to Eluru. 2 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim petition by filing written statement denying the dependency of the applicants on the deceased, bona fide passenger in a train and the death of the deceased in an untoward incident. The appellant / Railways further contended that as per the inquest report no ticket was recovered from the deceased and that the death could be a murder and that there was no information of any incident of fall of any passenger from the train nor there was any Alarm chain pulling to the train and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 3 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train No.430 Rajahmundry – Vijayawada fast passenger travelling from Tadepalligudem to Eluru on 22.4.2003? iii. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? iv. To what relief? 4 During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants two witnesses were examined as A.Ws.1 & 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/respondent, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and the copy of the Rough Journal was marked as Ex.R.1. 5 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal allowed the said petition and directed the appellant /railways to deposit the amount of compensation before it within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment failing which it shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the Railways. 6 Now the point for consideration is whether the award impugned in this appeal is correct, legal and valid? 7 The learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that though the death of the deceased in an untoward incident was established, the applicants failed to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket and that the police did not seize any ticket during the course of inquest and therefore he prayed to set aside the impugned award. 8 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicants contended that before boarding the train, the deceased informed to his wife over phone that he had purchased a ticket and gave instructions to her with regard to making construction of stair case and lavatory and therefore the telephonic conversation of the deceased with his wife would fall within the ambit and scope of section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and hence the Tribunal had rightly granted compensation to the applicants and that there are no grounds to interfere with the said award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9 For claiming compensation under section 124-A of the Act two requirements are to be satisfied viz., the death had occurred in an untoward incident and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. 10 It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body was noticed by the side of the railway track by the Key man of the railways and immediately he informed the same to the Station Superintendent who in turn informed the same to the police. The police, after coming to know about the incident, registered a case, held inquest over the dead of the deceased and the dead body was also subjected to postmortem examination. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased opined that the death was due to the result of multiple injuries sustained by him. During the inquest, the police did not find a ticket on the wearing apparel of the deceased. A.W.1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased, had categorically stated that half an hour after leaving the house on 22.4.2003, the deceased telephoned to her and informed that he purchased a journey ticket for train No.430 passenger from Tadepalligudem to Eluru and as there was time for arrival of the train, and also informed her to give instructions to the workers for construction of the stair case and sanitary work and for disbursing their payment if he comes late. There was every possibility for the deceased to inform about the purchase of ticket when he gave instructions to his wife through telephone with regard to the constructions to be made in the house in his absence and that possibility cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the statement of A.W.1 with regard to the deceased informing her about the purchase of ticket falls within the meaning of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states that the statement made by a person as to the cause of his death, or any of the circumstances resulting in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question are admissible under law. One of the circumstances is that the deceased purchased a ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the railway track. Therefore, from the evidence of A.W.1, it is clear that the deceased travelled in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. The possibility of missing of the ticket after the incident cannot be ruled out as the dead body was dragged to a considerable distance by the train. In such circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly placed reliance on the evidence of A.W.1 and arrived at the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to the compensation and that order needs no interference. 11 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 12.10.2011 Kvsn