THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.207 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 25.11.2005, in O.A.A.No.312 of 1999, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by respondent claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of son of the respondent/applicant, namely, K. Dineshan (herein after referred to as, ‘the deceased’), in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train, was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 06.11.1999, the deceased purchased ticket bearing No.20099398 and boarded train No.5012, Gorakhpur/Bauauni – Cochin Rapthisagar Express in II Class reservation compartment to travel from Lucknow to Shornur. During the night hours of 07.11.1999, the deceased slipped accidentally and fell down between Nidubrolu and Appikatla Railway Stations and died on the spot due to the multiple injuries sustained by him. Hence, the claim. 3. The Respondent – Railways denied the case of the applicant stating that the deceased did not travel by the said train; that the alleged death of the deceased was not on account of any fall from the train; that no entry of the journey ticket finds a place in the Sleeper Chart of S1 Coach in which the deceased was alleged to have travelled; that the chart clearly shows that berth No.70 along with berth Nos.69, 71, 72 and 73 was vacant and remained unoccupied; that in the circumstances, the case of the applicant that the deceased travelled by S1 coach under berth No.70 was false and fabricated; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the said train; that since there was no alleged eye-witness to the alleged fall, as the body was found in the mid-section, the railways are not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, the respondent – railways prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicant is the dependant of the deceased Kolangarathodiyil Dineshan? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.5012 Gorakpur/Bauroni – Cochin Express travelling from Lucknow to Shoranur on 06.11.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Nidubrolu and Appikatla railway stations as alleged? 4. To what relief?” 5. During trial, the applicant led her evidence through her affidavit and Exs.A1 to A7 were got marked, on her behalf, and on behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were 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 granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicant. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train; that the evidence of Travelling Ticket Examiner would go show that berth No.70 in S1 coach was not allotted to anybody; that the ticket produced by the respondent/applicant appears to be false or bogus one and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the allotment of berth No.70 was clear from the recitals in Ex.A6 – Inquest Report; that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train with valid ticket; that the said ticket was seized by the police while conducting inquest from the dead body of the deceased; that the deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling in the passenger train by holding a valid ticket; that the Tribunal after consideration of the evidence available on record, rightly granted compensation and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that when a person is travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket and if any untoward incident takes place resulting in death or injury of the person, the railway- administration is liable to pay compensation, unless the case of the applicant does not fall under any one of the clauses of Section 124A of the Act. 11. The main defence of the appellant/railway-administration is that berth No.70 in S1 coach of train No.5012, Gorakhpur/Bauauni – Cochin Rapthisagar Express, was not allotted to anybody; that the ticket produced by the respondent/applicant appears to be a bogus one and hence, the respondent is not entitled for compensation. It is not in dispute before this Court that immediately after the untoward incident, police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and found a ticket to travel in the express train, Rapthisagar Express. The ticket that was seized from the dead body of the deceased by the police is not shown to be a false or bogus ticket. Therefore, from Ex.A4 – Ticket, it can be safely inferred that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. For the reasons best known to the Travelling Ticket Examiner, the name of the deceased was not noted as an allottee of train No.5012. But, that does not mean that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train. Especially, when a valid ticket is found during the course of conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased to travel in the said train, it can be inferred that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train. That is the reason why the Tribunal held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train. The appellant failed to establish that the case of the respondent does not fall under any one of the clauses to Section 124A of the Act. Even the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 is not much relevant to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Ex.A6, inquest report, which bears an endorsement of the Travelling Ticket Examiner, would also go to show that the deceased was travelling in the express train on the date of the untoward incident. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 11, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.207 OF 2006 Between: Union of India .....APPELLANT AND K. Padmavathiamma ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.207 OF 2006 March 11, 2011