THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.653 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.06.2006 passed in O.A.A.No.5 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the claim application filed by the appellants seeking compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the respondent consequent upon the death of their son in an untoward incident, was dismissed. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 12.12.2001 Racharla Santha Babu (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) died in an untoward incident of accident fall while he was travelling as a bonafide passenger in train No.5623 from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam with a valid ticket. 3 The appellant (Railways) contested the said claim application by filing written statement contending that in the absence of journey ticket, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger; that the death of the deceased was not as a result of an untoward incident, but it was a self- inflicted injury due to the criminal act of the deceased himself and the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4 On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Racharla Santha Babu? ii. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam by Train No.5623 Express, on 12.12.2001? iii. Whether the deceased slipped accidentally and fell down from the train in an untoward incident after the train passed Godvari Railway Station and died? iv. To what relief? 5 During the course of trial, on behalf of the applicants two witnesses were examined as A.Ws.1 & 2; and four documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the appellant no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6 After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available before it, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application observing that the material available on record would go to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he had fallen down by his own negligent conduct in indulging in prohibited act of standing by the side of the door while travelling. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants filed this appeal. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? 8 The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased had purchased ticket to travel in the train and there is no other reason for the Tribunal to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2 and that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute and hence he prays to allow the claim of the appellants and award compensation to them. 9 On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that A.W.2 is no other than the brother-in-law of the deceased and his presence has not been mentioned in the inquest report and therefore the Tribunal has rightly rejected his evidence, and that if the evidence of A.W.2 is eschewed from consideration, there is no other evidence to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and hence the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants and that order does not warrant for any interference by this court and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10 For claiming compensation under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, two requirements are to be satisfied. In case of death, the claimants have to establish that there was an untoward incident happened; and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train. 11 Insofar as the death of the deceased is concerned, the police after receiving information about the finding of the body of the deceased by the side of railway track registered a case and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The inquest report would go to show that the body of the deceased was found one yard away from the railway track. But the police did not find any ticket during the course of inquest. The recitals in Ex.A.1 inquest report would go to show that one male person, after passing station had fallen from 5623 Express Train. From the evidence on record, the appellants established that the death of the deceased had occurred in an untoward incident. 12 Now it has to be seen whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not. The initial burden is on the appellants to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Of course, the police did not seize any ticket at the time of holding inquest, but at the same time, the appellants examined A.W.2. The evidence of A.W.2 has been disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that there are some discrepancies in his evidence. Discrepancies are bound to occur even in a case of truthful witness. If the discrepancies are minor in nature, they cannot be given much credence. But, if the discrepancies go to the root of the case, then only the evidence of the witness has to be discarded. In this case, the discrepancy as pointed out by the Tribunal is minor in nature because A.W.2 was not in a position to speak what was the value of the ticket and in which compartment the deceased boarded. Admittedly, A.W.2 is brother in law of the deceased. Though his name is not mentioned in the inquest report, but it is specifically mentioned in the application for compensation that the brother-in-law of the deceased accompanied the deceased to the railway station. Therefore, presence of A.W.2 has been mentioned in the application filed for compensation, which is the earliest point of time. Simply because he is none other than the brother-in-law of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded or disbelieved on that ground. There is every possibility to A.W.2, who accompanied the deceased to the railway station, to witness the deceased purchasing a ticket. But because the deceased himself purchased the ticket, it may not be knowing to A.W.2 with regard to the amount paid by the deceased in purchasing ticket. So also, A.W.2 did not enter into the platform of the railway station, he also may not be in a position to know in which compartment the deceased boarded the train. The discrepancies as pointed by the Tribunal are trivial in nature. Practically the evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged. If the evidence of A.W.2 is to be accepted, it is clear that the deceased purchased the ticket before boarding the passenger train. Hence the grounds on which the evidence of A.W.2 was rejected by Tribunal are not sustainable and therefore the appellants are entitled to compensation. 12 In the result, the appeal is allowed and the respondent – Railway Administration is hereby directed to pay Rs.4.00 lakhs to the appellants towards compensation for the death of the deceased with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this award till the date of realization. Both the applicants shall share the compensation equally. No costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J 26.08.2011 Kvsn