THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.501 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”), is directed against the order, dated 07.03.2005, in O.A.A.No.275 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was granted to the respondents herein towards compensation. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: The respondents/claimants filed the O.A.A. stating that the deceased, Thagininti Atchamma, along with some others boarded the Train No.471, Vijayawada to Rayagada Passenger, on 07.07.2000 at about 02:30 AM after purchasing the ticket from Anaparthi to Visakhapatnam, so as to go to her native place, Thimidi Village. After boarding the train, she sat in the compartment along with her colleagues. Some time later she stood up from the seat so as to go to toilet to answer calls of nature. On account of jerk of the train, she fell on the platform from the door and sustained head injury and died on the spot on platform No.3 of Anaparthi railway station. Basing on the complaint, police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination. Hence, the present claim petition. 3. The railways filed the counter denying the allegations and contending that the deceased was travelling without ticket; that she was not a bona fide passenger; and that the deceased sustained injuries on account of her own negligence and carelessness and therefore, the case does not fall within the definition of ‘untoward incident’ and hence, the claimants are not entitled for the compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependants of the deceased Thagininti Atchamma? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.471 Vijayawada – Rayagada passenger traveling from Anaparthi to Visakhapatnam on 07.07.2000? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Anaparthi railway station? 4. To what relief?” 5. On behalf of the claimants, AWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent Rahman Shariff, who was working as Guard of the train, filed his affidavit along with copy of extract of rough journal, Ex.R-1. CW.1, who is the Investigating Officer, was examined by the Claims Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the deceased died in an untoward incident on 07.07.2000 and therefore, the claimants are entitled for the compensation and accordingly, granted Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the railways. 7. The only point that requires consideration in this appeal is that whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from train No.471, Vijayawada to Rayagada passenger, on 07.07.2000 at about 02:30 AM at Anaparthi railway station? 8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train; that the persons who are accompanying the deceased did not report the matter to the Station Master immediately, though the alleged incident had taken place on the platform; and that the trial Court has not considered the evidence of CW.1, who clearly stated that no untoward incident was reported to him at Anaparthi railway station and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the evidence of AW.2 coupled with Exs.A-2 and A-3 would clearly go to show that the deceased had fallen from the running train because of the sudden jerk; that simply because the matter is not reported to the Station Master that does not mean that no untoward incident as such had taken place; and that the Tribunal after elaborate consideration of evidence on record rightly granted compensation and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Though a plea has been taken by the railways that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, the evidence on record would clearly go to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, because the ticket bearing No.13302 was recovered from the dead body of the deceased at the time of holding inquest under Ex.A3 by the police. That ticket was not shown to be invalid or incorrect ticket to travel from Anaparthi to Visakhapatnam. The specific case of the claimants is that the deceased boarded the train at Anaparthi so as to go to her native place, Thimidi Village, after purchasing the ticket. The seizure of the ticket from the dead body of the deceased supports and strengthens the case of the claimants that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 11. Now the question is whether the deceased died in an untoward incident so as to come within the purview of Section 124A of the Act? Under Section 124A of the Act, when a person dies or sustains injuries, travelling as a passenger in a train, Railways are liable to compensate him. The word ‘passenger’ defined under the said provision reads that a person travelling in the train with a valid ticket. For the purpose of invoking Section 124A of the Act, the burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that he died in an untoward incident while travelling in a train. 12. The initial burden is on the claimants to establish that the deceased died in an untoward incident in an accidental fall from the train. AW.2 is the eye witness to the incident. She categorically stated that she along with the deceased and some others boarded the Vijayawada – Rayagada passenger train at Anaparthi station; they sat for some time in the train; thereafter, the deceased stood up to go to toilet to answer calls of nature and while she was going to toilet, there was a sudden jerk to the train and as a result, the deceased accidentally fell from the train on the platform, sustained head injury and died on the spot. That evidence remained unchallenged. There is no other reason for AW.2 to speak false. Her evidence is very clear that the deceased had fallen from the train accidentally due to the sudden jerk of the train. Ex.A-2 is the post-mortem certificate issued by the doctor, who opined that the deceased died on account of head injury sustained by her. Ex.A-3 is the inquest report, wherein the inquest mediator opined that the deceased died as a result of fall from the train. 13. If really the deceased was not travelling in the train, ticket would not have been seized by the police from the dead body of the deceased. So, there is every scope or possibility for the deceased to board the train at Anaparthi. After boarding the train at Anaparthi, she was proceeding to toilet to answer calls of nature. At that time, there was a jerk to the train and as a result of which she fell down from the door on the platform and sustained head injury. The evidence of AW.2 is in complete corroboration with Exs.A-2 and A-3. Therefore, the Tribunal after consideration of the evidence on record rightly believed the evidence of AW.2 in arriving at the conclusion that the deceased died in an untoward incident i.e., accidental fall from the train at the door, while she was going to toilet. None of the finding is shown to be incorrect or improper. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 09, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.501 OF 2005 Between: The Union of India .....APPELLANT AND Thagininti Appa Rao and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: