THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 383 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 20-01-2009 in O.A.A.No.336 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The case of the respondent-claimant before the Tribunal is that he is the husband of the deceased-Smt.Gade Anjamma. On 11- 10-2002, when they have boarded the train to travel from Samalkot to Vijayawada, due to heavy rush and pushings, the deceased lost her control and unable to catch grip of the train and fell down from the train and died on the spot. Hence, he filed the application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs due to the death of his wife in the untoward incident. 3. The appellant-Railways herein filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that after the departure of the train at Samalkot, one lady passenger tried to catch the train on motion, slipped and was run over and was killed opposite to G.R.P. Office. It is further stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and there is no evidence to show that the deceased was having a valid ticket and that the respondent has not produced the death certificate, or legal heir certificate, and hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 4. The Tribunal framed the necessary issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the application granting compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed this appeal. 5. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 6. Learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased tried to board the running train and sustained injuries due to her criminal act and that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the ticket number has been clearly mentioned in the inquest report and that while boarding the train, the deceased accidentally fell down and sustained injuries, and therefore, it is untoward incident, and that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, came to the right conclusion and granted compensation, hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. To claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the Act’), two requirements are to be satisfied. Firstly, it must be untoward incident. Secondly, the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. 9. Insofar as the aspect whether the deceased is bona fide passenger or not is concerned, the police after registration of the case under Ex.A-1, held inquest on the dead body and found ticket and its number has also been noted in the inquest report, Ex.A-2. The objective findings of the police officials during the course of investigation are admissible under law. Therefore, from the recitals from Ex.A-2, it is clear that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 10. Insofar as untoward incident is concerned, no doubt, it is the case of the respondent-claimant that while the deceased was boarding the train, she accidentally fell down and died, but at the same time, it cannot be said to be a criminal act on the part of the deceased as she was a bona fide passenger. When the train was moving slowly, she tried to board the train, but unfortunately, she fell down and died. The defences available to the Railways are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The act of the deceased does not fall under any one of the clauses under the said proviso. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation, and there are no grounds to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. __________________ 16th August 2011 kvr