THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.511 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.06.2008 in O.A.A.No.39 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad {“the Tribunal” for brevity}, filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sections 124 and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 {“the Act” for brevity}, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the death of the deceased, Mikkilineni Venkata Nagaraja Ramaiah @ Nagaraju, in an untoward incident that occurred on 06.02.2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under. The claim application has been filed by the wife and children of a person by name Mikkilineni Venkata Nagaraja Ramaiah @ Nagaraju (hereinafter referred to as deceased), aged 40 years, a retired ex- serviceman of Indian Navy, R/o.Duggirala in Guntur District, claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for his death in an alleged untoward incident that happened between Chinnaravuru and Jampani Railway Stations at Km.4/4-5 on 06.02.2002. First applicant is wife, second and fourth applicants are daughters and the third applicant is the son of the deceased. The applicants have stated that on 06.02.2002, the deceased boarded Guntur-Repalle passenger with a second-class journey ticket bearing No.09916373-6373 from Tenali to Repalli and while traveling by this train, accidentally fell down between Chinnaravuru and Jampani Railway Stations at Km.4/4-5, sustained injuries and died on the spot. 3. The Respondent Railways in its written statement dated 16.04.2004, while denying the averments made in the application, stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that a dead body of a male aged about 40 years was found lying out of track at Km.4/4-5 between Tenali and Repalle stations and that by itself does not indicate that he fell down from a train carrying passengers. The Respondent further stated that the guard of train No.351 passenger reported that there was no untoward incident by his train on 06.02.2002 and that the applicants have created a story for the purpose of claiming compensation from the Railway administration fraudulently. The Respondent therefore stated that it is not a case of accidental fell from a train in an untoward incident and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed on 12.07.2004. (1) Whether the Applicants are the dependants of the deceased Mikkilineni Venkata Nagaraja Ramaiah? (2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Guntur-Repalle passenger travelling from Tenali to Repalle on 06.02.2002? (3) Whether the deceased died on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Chinaravuru and Jampani Rly. Stations at Km.No.4/4-5? (4) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. No evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the Railways. 6. The Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, held hat the deceased is a bona fide passenger but he did not die in an untoward incident, and dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that on the sole ground that the time of death as stated by the applicants is not tallying with the approximate time of death as mentioned in the Post Mortem report, the claim application is dismissed and that the death in an untoward incident is not in dispute, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger is not disputed and hence, the claimants are entitled to the compensation. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- South Central Railway opposed the said contentions on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the deceased had fallen from a running train and that the evidence adduced by the applicants is contradictory to the recitals of the inquest report and the post mortem report, and after considering all these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. For the purpose of compensation, proviso (b) to Section 124-A of the Act has to be satisfied that there must be an untoward incident and the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in train. The Key man found the dead body, which is lying at a distance of seven feet from the railway track and informed about the incident to the Station House Officer, who, in turn, passed on the message to the family members of the deceased. The police registered a case and it is not in dispute that the Railway Police, after securing the presence of mediators, held inquest on the dead body of the deceased wherein it is opined that the deceased died in a train accident. After inquest, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem, found several injuries all over the body and opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury and injury to the vital organs like lungs. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is evident that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 10. Coming to the aspect of bona fide passenger, the applicants produced Ex.A1-valid ticket to travel in the train. That ticket is not rebutted as the Railway Administration did not produce contra evidence on that aspect. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the post mortem was conducted on 08.02.2002 at 3.30 pm and the time of the death is approximately 36 hours by the time dead body was found, i.e., the deceased died in the morning hours of 07.02.2002 and not on 06.02.2002. Ex.A2 is death certificate. In fact, the death of the deceased took place on 07.02.2002. In view of this contradictory statement, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of the applicants. But the fact remains that the Key man of the Railways found the dead body at a distance of seven feet from the Railway track and the same was incorporated in Ex.A5-inquest report. There cannot be any dispute that objective findings of the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation are admissible under law. The dead body of the deceased was found at a distance of seven feet from the Railway track, which suggested that the deceased might have fallen from the train accidentally. That fact might not be known to A.Ws.1 and 2 because, admittedly, A.Ws.1 and 2 were not present, or travelling with the deceased, at the time of the incident. Therefore, the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is established beyond preponderance of probabilities and that if it is a case of suicide or incident took place in some other manner, Ex.A1-ticket would not have been found on the body of the deceased when the police conducted inquest on the dead body. Therefore, when the two aspects that the deceased died in an untoward incident and that he was a bona fide passenger are established by cogent evidence, the applicants are entitled to compensation. 11. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The facts of the case do not fall under any one of the categories of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal committed grave mistake in not awarding compensation when the two essential requirements for claiming compensation are established by the applicants. 12. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the applicants are awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- {Rupees four lakh only} i.e., Rs.2,20,000/- {Rupees two lakh twenty thousand only} to the first applicant-wife and Rs.60,000/- {Rupees sixty thousand only} each to the three children. The amount awarded to the three children, shall be kept in fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank till they attain majority. The applicants are also entitled to simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of this award till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 19th August 2011 RRB