IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1237 OF 2008 Date:19.09.2011 Between:- Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And P.Lakshmi Devi and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 07.07.2008, in O.A.A.No.394 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124/124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of P.Venkateswarlu (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 26/27.09.2003, was allowed. 2. The respondents/applicants filed the O.A.A. stating that they are the wife, minor children and mother respectively of the deceased; that on the intervening night of 26/27.09.2003, the deceased, while travelling from Ananthapur to Guntakal by train No.1014 Kurla Express after purchasing a general journey ticket, fell down accidentally from the running train between Ananthapur and Thaticherla Railway stations and died on the spot; that the journey ticket was lost in the train accident. 3. The appellant/Railways filed their written statement denying the averments of the claim application and stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The railway night Patrolman informed that a male, aged 20 years, was run over by train at Km.217/6-7 and killed between Ananthapur and Thaticherla Railway Stations and lying between the Meter Gauge Tracks. Mere finding of a dead body on the track is not by itself is a proof that there was a fall from train resulting in death and also there was no eye witness to the incident. It is not a case of accidental fall from train in an untoward incident and therefore, the Railways are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him/her in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? 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 got marked. On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R-1 was got marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that though the deceased died in an untoward incident, the applicants failed to produce the journey ticket or the number of the ticket to show that the deceased was a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket; that the evidence of A.W.2 is not a reliable evidence; that the dead body was cut into two pieces which suggests that there was a foul play in the incident; and he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that he went to the railway station along with the deceased and had seen the deceased purchasing a ticket and boarding the train, and there is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements are to be satisfied. 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 travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railway administration wants to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the track in between Ananthapur and Thaticherla Railway stations. Police, after coming to know about the incident, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The post mortem report also says that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries all over his body. Now, the only question to be considered in this appeal is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not. 12. It is not in dispute that the initial burden is on the applicants to show that the deceased was a passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. To prove so, A.W.2 was examined. The evidence of A.W.2 would clearly go to show that he worked with the deceased in the same department for several years and that on the date of incident, the deceased came to his office, at about 7.30 p.m. both of them went to Ananthapur Railway Station and he saw the deceased purchasing a ticket to travel from Ananthapur to Guntakal and boarding train No.1014 Kurla Express in general compartment, and thereafter, he left the station. In the cross examination also, he reiterated the same facts. Practically, the evidence of A.W.2 remained unchallenged. There cannot be any dispute that if the evidence of a witness is found to be true, reliable and trustworthy, there is no difficulty in accepting the said evidence. Since the deceased and A.W.2 were working in the same department since several years, there is every possibility for A.W.2 to accompany the deceased to the railway station. At that point of time, there was a scope for A.W.2 to witness the deceased purchasing the ticket. As the deceased was transferred from Ananthapur to C.T.O. Telephone Exchange, Battalapalli Village, there is every reason for A.W.2 to accompany the deceased to give send off to the deceased as he was posted to some other place. That is the reason why the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. When there are no glaring inconsistencies in the evidence of A.W.2 so as to disbelieve his evidence, he can be put in the category of wholly reliable witness. If that is the case, it can be accepted even without any corroboration from other witnesses. So, from the evidence of A.W.2, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2 and granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 19th September, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1237 OF 2008 Date:19.09.2011 AMD