IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 720 OF 2009 Between : Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Smt P.Nagaratnam and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 720 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 05.03.2009, in O.A.A.No.7 of 2004, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents-applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Thata Rao (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed directing the Railways to deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of actual payment. 2. The appellant in the C.M.A. is the respondent, and the respondents in the C.M.A. 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 O.A.A. stating that, on 16.10.2003, while the deceased was travelling from Visakhapatnam to Anakapalli by train No.472 passenger along with others, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down at Anakapalli Station, sustained injuries and died. The deceased along with others purchased ticket Nos.00676228, 00675167 and 00674406 respectively and the same were seized by the GRP. Hence, the claim application. 4. Respondent- Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that there was no untoward incident happened at Anakapalli Station on that day; that no message was given to the GRP regarding the accident as confirmed by the Dy.SS/Anakapalli; and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial. “1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.472 passenger travelling from Visakhapatnam to Anakapalli on 16.10.2003? 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.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 7. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant-railways contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train; that due to negligence of the deceased only he slipped and fell down from the running train; that no untoward incident had happened at Anakapalli Railway Station on that date and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 would clearly go to show that due to sudden jerk of the train only, the deceased had fallen down from the train and died; that after intimation of the death, Police registered a case under Ex.A.1 and thereafter, conducted inquest under Ex.A.2, which would clearly go to show that the accident had taken place on that day; that the applicants produced Ex.A.4- original ticket to show that the deceased travelled in the passenger train on that day and therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), the first condition precedent to be proved by the applicants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train. If these two requirements are satisfied, then the burden shifts to the railways to establish that no untoward incident had happened or that the case of the applicants fall under any one of the clauses mentioned under proviso to Section 124 A of the Act. 10. With regard to the untoward incident, it is not in dispute that on coming to know about the incident, police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him. The evidence of A.W.2, who is the co-passenger travelling along with the deceased, has categorically stated that the deceased boarded the train and due to sudden jerk of the passenger train, the deceased fell down from the train and sustained injuries. Immediately after the incident, the deceased was shifted to KGH Hospital, Visakhapatnam. There is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the Railway administration to show that no untoward incident had happened on that date and time as mentioned in the claim petition and as evidenced by the record. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that an untoward incident had happened on that date. 11. Coming to the second aspect whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket or not, it is not in dispute that the applicants produced Ex.A.4-original ticket which would go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. The Railway administration has not adduced any rebuttal evidence with regard to the ticket produced by the applicants. The defences available to the railway administration are enumerated under provisio to Section 124-A of the Act. The case does not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under provisio to Section 124 A of the Act. Therefore, the railway administration is liable to pay compensation. From the evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 05.03.2009 in O.A.A.No.7 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 12, 2011 YVL