IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.460 OF 2006 Date:23.03.2011 Between:- Bommi Krishna Murthy and others ..Appellants/Applicants And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 08.11.2005, in O.A.A.No.206 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellants/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Bommi Anasuya in a railway accident that took place on 18.12.1998 was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: One 18.12.1998, while B.Anasuya was travelling in Train No.2717 Ratnachal Express from Eluru to Vijayawada along with her daughter- in-law B.Geetha, her mother Annamma and another relation K.Venkata Ramana, she went near the wash basin and slipped from the running train in between Eluru-Vatluru Railway Stations at KM No.487/4-5 which could not be witnessed by her relations and the co-passengers and when the train was reaching Vijayawada Railway Station, they searched the toilets. The relations thought that she alighted on the Vijyawada platform since train reached the destination. They did not report the incident to the Station staff or GRP after they have not entertained any suspicion. The co-passengers handed over their three tickets at the exit gate. The journey ticket of the deceased was misplaced by the daughter-in-law of the deceased-B.Geetha. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the incident of fall or purchase of tickets by the deceased and three others. The accidental fall could have been noticed since the journey was on broad day time. When the injuries sustained by the deceased appears to be self inflicted, the railway cannot be fastened with liability. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased Bommi Anasuya? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.2717 Visakhapatnam-Vijayawada Ratnachal express travelling from Eluru to Vijayawada on 18.12.1998? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train between Eluru and Vatlur Railway Stations? 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 respondent, no witnesses were examined nor any documents marked. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. 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. If these two requirements are satisfied, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to show that the case falls under anyone of the exception under Section 124-A of the Act. 8. Admittedly, A.W.1 is not an eye witness to the incident. His statement was recorded by the police after the death of the deceased and it is not helpful to the case. A.W.2 is an Advocate. She has not reported the matter to the police station after she got down from train at Vijayawada. She has not searched for the deceased. She has not made any efforts to trace the deceased. So, there is absolutely no evidence adduced by applicants to show that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train and that she fell down from the train accidentally and died. At the time of conducting inquest, the police have not seized any ticket from the body of the deceased. The dead body was said to have been removed from the track. No explanation was given as to why the dead body was shifted. So, all these circumstances would clearly go to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident. Therefore, the Tribunal, after elaborate consideration of the material available on record, rightly dismissed the same. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.460 OF 2006 Date:23.03.2011 AMD