IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 136 OF 2008 Between : The Union of India …APPELLANT A N D Karumuri Muthyalamma and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 136 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order, dated 23.11.2007, in O.A.A.No.353 of 2002, 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 the deceased Karumuri Muthyalamma (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), was allowed directing the Railways to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and in the event of failure to deposit, it was ordered to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt of the order till the date of realization. 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 brief facts are that, on 16.08.2002, the deceased boarded train No.8689 Bokaro Express to go from Vijayawada to Tenali. When the said train reached near Tenali Railway Station, the deceased came near the door with a view to get down and due to sudden jerk of the said train, he slipped and fell down between the train and platform; sustained fatal injuries and died. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent - Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that no journey ticket was filed along with the claim application; that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train; that the Station Master, Tenali reported that some public informed to him that a male person aged about 65 years, who seems to be a beggar, while getting down from train No.8689 Express in motion, had fallen down and his right leg was cut; that the incident was not brought to the notice of the Guard of the train and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether on 16.08.2002 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 3. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 © of the Railways Act? 4. Relief and costs?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A10 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and Ex.R.1 was got marked. 7. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant-railways contended that the deceased had not fallen from train No.8689 Bokaro Express at Tenali Railway Station; that the Guard has not informed about any person falling from the train at Tenali Railway Station; that therefore, the Tribunal committed error in granting compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 would clearly got to show that he purchased a ticket and gave it to the deceased; that during the course of incident the deceased might have lost the ticket; that the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and none of the findings are shown to be perverse or contrary to the law therefore, and 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 the 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 does not fall under any one of the clauses mentioned in Section 124 A of the Act. 10. The initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. To show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, A.W.2 was examined. As seen from his evidence, he purchased a ticket and the same was handed over to the deceased. While the deceased was getting down from the compartment at Tenali Railway Station, due to heavy rush, the deceased fell down from the train accidentally, sustained injuries and thereafter, he was shifted to a hospital to save his life, but there he succumbed to injuries. Falling of the deceased from the compartment may not be noticed by the Guard or the Station Master. Immediately, the police visited the place of incident and registered a case. Police also conducted investigation and submitted a final report stating that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. The deceased accidentally fell down from the train, sustained injuries and died. Practically, the evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged. The evidence of A.W.2 to the effect that he purchased a ticket to the deceased travelling in a passenger train has not been denied or disputed in his cross-examination. Once a fact has been stated by a witness and it is denied or disputed in the cross-examination, then it can be presumed that such a fact is admitted. Therefore, from the evidence of A.W.2, it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train with a valid ticket. The railway administration has not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the said train. 11. With regard to falling from the running train, the documents filed by the Railway Police would clearly go to show that while alighting from the train, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down due to heavy rush in the general compartment. Therefore, it amounts to an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. Therefore, considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 23.11.2007, in O.A.A.No.353 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 09, 2011 YVL