IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.441 of 2010. Date:23.08.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And Devara Murali and others .. Respondents/Applicants JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 18.03.2010, in O.A.A.No.162 of 2005 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 read with Section 124-A and 125 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 Devara Sandeep (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 04.05.2005 was allowed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal is as follows: Respondents/applicants are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was resident of Epurupalem. On 04.05.2005, at about 8.00 a.m., he left for Chirala informing his father that he would go to Vijayawada by train to his aunt’s place, and while travelling in train No.477 Passenger from Chirala to Vijayawada and when the train was passing Epurupalem halt station, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train. He was immediately taken to Bapatla Government Hospital, and later to Guntur for better treatment, but he died at 16.05 hours on the same day. The ticket was stated to be lost in the accident. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the averments made in the application and stated that halt agent at Epurupalem Halt Station had given a report that on 04.05.2005, a person came running to catch train No.477 when it was in motion, he tried to board and fell from the train and his relatives took him away to the hospital. Therefore, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and fell down due to his own negligence in trying to get into a running train and therefore, the railway is not liable to pay compensation. 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 No.477 passenger traveling from Chirala to Vijayawada on 04.05.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.R-1. 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 he 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 no untoward incident was happened; that the deceased died due to his own negligence; that the applicants failed to produce any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger; that the Tribunal was not correct in granting compensation in the absence of legal evidence; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that he saw the deceased purchasing a ticket and boarded a passenger train; that the evidence of R.W.1 would clearly go to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident; 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 conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants 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 passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. No doubt, the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train, but at the same time, the applicants examined A.W.2, who went to the railway station along with the deceased and saw the deceased purchasing a ticket. The statement of A.W.2 to the effect that the deceased purchased a ticket to travel in the passenger train remained unchallenged. Once a fact is stated by a witness and the same is not disputed or denied in the cross examination, it can be said that such a fact is admitted. So, from the evidence of A.W.2, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. When once the initial burden stands on the applicants is discharged, then the burden shifts to the railway administration to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. No evidence was adduced by the railway administration to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. 12. With regard to the untoward incident, the deceased was found lying by the side of the track, basing on the information of complainant, railway police registered a case and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased had fallen from a running train. The injuries, as noticed by the Post Mortem Doctor, would clearly go to show that those injuries can be possible by falling from a running train. Furthermore, the police, after completion of investigation, filed a final report stating that there is no foul play or suspicious circumstances resulting in the death of the deceased. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.441 of 2010. Date:23.08.2011 AMD