THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 378 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal, at the instance of the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, is directed against the order dated 20-01-2010 in O.A.A.No.92 of 2004, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 21-01-2004, the deceased-Shaik Kalesha Vali purchased a train journey ticket and boarded the train at Nellore to go to Singarayakonda, and while getting down from the train, he accidentally slipped and came between the platform and train and died instantaneously. Hence, the claimants filed this application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the Act’) to grant compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the accidental death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that as per the statement of the Guard of train No.7480 express, there was no Alarm Chain Pulling and no incident of fall was reported to him and that the alleged incident, if any, was caused by the criminal acts of the deceased and that the claim does not fall under the provisions of Section 124-A of the Act. Hence, the railways have no liability to pay any compensation at all. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the Applicants are the dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train in question? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief? 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the application awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs directing the railways to pay the same within two months with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-railways have filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- railways and the learned counsel for the respondents-applicants and perused the record. 7. Learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the applicants are not entitled to compensation in view of the fact that the alleged incident was caused due to criminal act of the deceased and that the privilege pass, Ex.A-6, was misused by the deceased, therefore, he prays to set aside the same. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that there was no misuse of the pass by the deceased and he can travel from Nellore to Mumbai on the said pass and that on the date of incident, he was traveling in a train carrying passengers, coming from Mumbai to Singaraikonda, with a valid ticket and therefore, the question of misuse of pass does not arise, and that the Claims Tribunal rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of 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 traveling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the same, it must show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or that the death of the deceased is not in an untoward incident or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body was found lying on the track. The Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy, opined that the deceased died as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was having privilege pass to travel from C.S.T. Mumbai to Nellore. On the date of the incident, the deceased was travelling from Nellore to Singarayakonda. The deceased had fallen from running train and sustained injuries and died. Ex.A-6 is the pass, by which the deceased can travel from CST Mumbai to Nellore and back. Ex.A-6 would show that the deceased or his family members can travel from C.S.T. Mumbai to Nellore and in the reverse direction from Nellore to Mumbai C.S.T. and therefore, it cannot be said to be a misuse of pass because he was travelling in the reverse direction from Nellore to Singarayakonda. The plea of Railways that incident has caused due to criminal act of the deceased is not substantiated with any evidence. It is devoid of merit and wholly untenable. Hence, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation. 11. However, the learned counsel for the appellant placed on reliance on the decision of this Court in Pulipaka Varalakshmi Vs. Union of India, rep. by General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad[1]. Wherein, it was held thus: “Hence, the C.M.A. is allowed, and the order under O.A.A. is set aside. It is held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. However, since the nature of use of the pass was in doubt, the appellants shall be entitled to half of the compensation, namely, Rs.2 lakhs (two lakhs). This shall be subject to the condition that, in case they were extended any benefit on account of the death of the deceased in the accident, over and above the death/retirement benefits, they shall not be entitled to be paid the compensation, indicated above.” In that case, the pass was misused. The compensation was reduced to half of the claim made by the applicants. Therefore, the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case since it is not a case of misuse of pass by the deceased. 12. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ 21st October 2011 kvr [1] 2011 (5) A.L.T. 628