THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.15 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against an order made in O.A.A.No.169 of 1998 dated 13.09.2005 on the file of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed by the respondent herein under Sections 16 of the Act r/w Sections 124-A and 125 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of her son-P.Chandappa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from train, was allowed as claimed for. The appellant-South Central Railway is the respondent and the respondent is the applicant in the O.A.A. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.A.A. According to the applicant, on 27.06.1998 she along with her son P.Chandappa boarded Train No.6529 Mumbai-Bangalore Udyan Express in second class general compartment at Yadgir Railway Station holding railway journey ticket bearing No.20528, which was kept by the deceased. While the train reached in between Molagavalli and Nancherla Railway Stations at K.M No.455/1-2 near Bridge No.891 the deceased slipped and fell down from the train, as a result of which, he sustained injury and died on the spot. Therefore, the applicant claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The respondent filed written statement denying the allegations and putting the applicant to strict proof of the allegations made by her in the application. It was stated that Ticket No.20528 was said to have been planted to show as if it was recovered from the deceased. On the information given by Keyman, the Station Master informed the GRP, Guntakal for investigation of the case. Further, in view of the recitals in paras iv, xii, xv and xxii of inquest report, no compensation is payable in this case since the deceased travelled by sitting at the door step and it was due to his own careless and negligent act the accident occurred. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the Applicant is a dependent of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident? 4. To what relief?” On behalf of the applicant, the applicant examined herself as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the respondent, Keyman was examined as R.W.1. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant was the mother of the deceased, and thus, she is his dependant and that the deceased was holding a valid ticket, and therefore, she was a bona fide passenger. Further, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that this was an untoward incident of accidental slip from the Train and therefore, the applicant was entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased not fallen from Train No.6529 Mumbai-Bangalore Udyan Express on 27.06.1998 at Yadgir Railway Station and there was no eyewitness to justify the said fact that the deceased had fallen from the running train. The keyman of the Railways reported only after 11.30 hours on 28.06.1988 to the Station Master, Kancherla that one male person aged about 28 years was found dead under Bridge No.891 at K.M.455/1-2. He also contended that the report of the Keyman and the FIR reveal that the death was not on account of fall from the train and as such the applicant is not entitled to compensation. He further contended that A.W.1, who purported to have travelled along with her son, was not holding any ticket. Therefore, it must be deemed that the deceased also was not having ticket at the time of accident and the ticket said to have been found on the body of the deceased was planted one. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that this is a genuine case of Railway accident of a bona fide passenger and the evidence recorded by the Tribunal categorically indicates that there was negligence on the part of the Railways, and therefore, the incident was an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation and no error is committed by the Tribunal calling for interference by this Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The findings recorded against issue Nos.1 to 3 read as under: Issue No.1 The Applicant filed Ex.A.3 Family Member Certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar of Wadagra, District Gulbarga, Karnataka State in which the name of the applicant is shown as survivor of late Basapa and this certificate was issued for claiming compensation benefit. Except the applicant no others made any claim that they are dependants of the deceased. Ex.A.3 is also not disputed as not authentic. Hence, positive findings are in favour of the Applicant. Issue No.2 The applicant filed her affidavit to substantiate her claim and she was subjected to cross examination. She categorically deposed that her son purchased two tickets for herself and the deceased and that the tickets were retained by her son who fell down in the mid night and she witnessed the same so also the other passengers sitting in the compartment but none have taken any steps to stop the train and that the train ultimately stopped at Guntakal after half an hour and at that time she informed to the Station Master, Guntakal about the fall of her son from the train. The Station Master asked her to contact the Rly.Police and on the same date the GRP came to know of it and on that night police had taken her but that night the dead body was not traced out, through police she sent information to her villagers who also came on the next day. On the second day the body was noticed by the side of the track where she was taken by the police for identification and all that two days she remained in the Guntakal Police station. In the cross examination nothing was elicited to discredit her testimony. Ex.A.1 FIR was registered on 29-6-98 at 13.50 hrs., on receipt of memo sent by the SM/Nacherla who sent the message on the basis of Ex.R1 statement given by the Keyman who was examined as RW1 in this case and he categorically stated that on 28-6-98 while he was on duty from 7 a.m to 5 p.m he saw a male dead body aged 28 yrs., at KM No.455/1-2 near Bridge No.891 and that he informed to the Station Master Nancherla. The inquest of the dead body was held on 29-6-98 at 4 p.m. At the time of inquest the police have recovered a general ticket bearing No.20528 issued from Yadgir to Bangalore. Only one ticket was recovered and the non recovery of another ticket will not falsify AW1’s version. Her physical presence at Guntkal R.S proves that she also travelled along with the deceased. The respondent has not disputed the authenticity of the ticket. The journey was for a long distance. There is no possibility of planting a ticket in the clothes of the deceased for the same of the claim. After all the applicant who is resident of a remote village of Gulbarga District cannot influence the police in getting the ticket planted for the sake of claim. The factual aspects and evidence on record are satisfactory to hold that the deceased and the applicant have travelled from Yadgir to Bangalore and on the way near Nancherla the mishap had taken place. Issue No.3 It is a common knowledge and experience as to how the passengers are over crowded in the general compartment and in spite of heavy rush the passengers with fond hope of going from one place to another would board into it and accommodated themselves and while making journey in such a situation they come across with unfortunate incident. Even though the applicants had travelled with the deceased she could not go to the rescue, similarly other passengers help her especially in the mid night. Unless a passenger in the compartment is an educated person, one will not be knowing that chain is to be pulled in case of a fall from the train. The applicant being an illiterate may not be having any idea that chain is to be pulled to bring it to the notice of the authorities at that juncture. Applicant is being an un-educated women had made all her efforts to inform to SM/Guntakal and also to the police until it was noticed by RW1 on 28-6-98 the dead body could not be traced as the dead body has fallen under the bridge No.891. From the evidentiary aspects coupled with the evidence and circumstances on record it can be held that the deceased had fallen from the train while it was in motion. It cannot be attributed that he negligently remained at the door of the compartment having purchased the tickets the deceased and AW1 had no other alternative except to board into the train and carry on with the journey facing all inconvenience. When the respondent has taken a plea that the incident was on account of the negligence with self inflicted injury the burden is on it to discharge it which is not proved and established. The evidence of AW1 coupled with recovery of ticket would establish beyond doubt that the fall of the deceased from the train was on account of an untoward incident and thereby the applicant being the sole dependent is entitled for compensation. The above findings recorded by the Tribunal are sufficient to hold that the award passed by the Tribunal was just and proper and supported by cogent reasons and it does not require any interference by this Court. Simply because the mother of the deceased was not holding ticket at that particular point of time, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a genuine passenger and the ticket was planted on his body. This is a case where immediately after the falling of her son from the train accidentally, the mother tried to alert people and ultimately got down at the next station and stayed therein for almost more than 40 hours till the body was traced out on the next day by the Keyman, would show that they were genuine and bona fide passengers and the deceased had fallen accidentally from the train. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error calling for interference by this Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 13.08.2010 va