IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1252 of 2008 Date:19.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And S.Balamani and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 09.07.2008, in O.A.A.No.407 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Sakali Kistaiah (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 22.11.2003, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the wife and minor children of the deceased; that on 22.11.2003, the deceased, while travelling from Dadar to Tandur by train No.7031 express, accidentally fell down at KM.567/2-1 near railway over bridge at Gulberga Station limits of Karnataka State, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the application and stating that as per the Station Manager, Gulberga, Guard informed orally that one dead body was lying between KM.567/2-1 near fly over bridge on upside between railway tracks; that the applicants have not furnished originals/attested copies of documents of First Information Report, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Examination Report and ticket, and without those documents, the applicants have no prima facie case; that the incident does not come under the provisions of Section 124-A of the Act, and put the applicants to strict proof that they are the dependents of the deceased under Section 123(b) of the Act, and prayed to dismiss the claim application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 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 lakhs? 5. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-3. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not established beyond preponderance of probability and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to the compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that there is no dispute about the death of the deceased in an untoward incident, as the dead body was found lying by the side of the track, and that the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, and the inquest mediators have given an opinion in the inquest report with regard to apparent cause of the death of the deceased, and the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. 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 the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. Insofar as the aspect as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, in Ex.A-2-inquest report, it is clearly stated that the deceased was having a ticket bearing No.039811 with fare of Rs.145/- and it was purchased on 22.11.2003 at 12.11 hours. There cannot be any dispute that objective findings of the Investigating Officer during the course of inquest are admissible under law. The said document has not been denied or disputed by the Railways. So, from the recitals in Ex.A-2, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 12. Coming to the aspect of the death of the deceased in an untoward incident, the applicants ought to have filed the post mortem report, which would reveal about the actual cause of death of the deceased. But as seen from the written statement filed by the respondents, they did not seriously dispute or deny about the cause of death of the deceased as falling from a running train. The inquest report would clearly go to show that the deceased sustained several injuries, which may be possible by falling from a running train. The dead body of the deceased was noticed by the side of a railway fly over bridge at KM.567/2-1 at Gulberga within the limits of Karnataka state. After the death, police intimated about the death of the deceased to A.W.2. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/Railways is that nobody had witnessed the deceased falling from the running train. But the dead body was noticed by the train Guard, who reported about the same to the Station Master, Gulberga, who in turn gave a message to the Sub Inspector of Police, Dadar to take further action. Basing on the same, the police registered a case and investigated into. There cannot be any dispute that for holding inquest under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to ascertain the apparent cause of the death of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him. That opinion has to be relied for the purpose of deciding whether the deceased died in an untoward incident or not. From the case diary and the inquest report coupled with Ex.A-3-DRM’s report, it is clear that the deceased died by falling from a running train. Some lapses committed by the applicants in not filing the post mortem report to show the actual cause of death of the deceased is not a ground to deny the compensation to the applicants especially when the death of the deceased by falling from a running train is not seriously disputed by the railways by adducing necessary evidence before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 19th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1252 of 2008 Date:19.09.2011 AMD