HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.95 of 2003 Date: 21.02.2011 Between: Union of India, rep.by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. … Appellant and Doradla Mahalakshmamma and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.95 of 2003 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 30.09.2002, in O.A.A.No.76 of 2000, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, in allowing the application filed by the respondents/applicants seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of Doradla Venkata Ramanaiah (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train. 2. The deceased while travelling by Train No.2712 Pinakini Express from Chennai to Singarayakonda with Senior Citizen Ticket bearing No.06896725 had accidentally fallen down while the train was entering into the Railway Station, and he fell in between the platform and the train and he was dragged by train for some distance and died instantaneously on account of sustaining injuries. Police registered a case and conducted inquest. The body was subjected to postmortem examination. Hence the claim application. 3. The Railway administration resisted the claim stating that the deceased was not a victim of untoward incident, that he was not a bonafide passenger and on his own negligent act by standing at the door, the incident appears to have occurred, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial: 1. Whether the applicant is the dependant of the deceased Doradla Venkata Ramanaiah? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train No.2712 Pinakini Express travelling from Chennai to Singarayakonda on 29.12.1999? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train at Singarayakonda Railway Station? 4. To what relief? 5. To substantiate the case of applicants, AW-1, the son of the deceased filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the Railways, the affidavit of one K.Ramalingam, Guard of Pinakini Express, doing the duty from Chennai to Vijayawada on the relevant date of the incident was filed and got marked Ex.R-1. RW.1 was examined to speak that no untoward incident had come to his notice and as such the train was not stopped at Singarayakonda Railway Station. The Tribunal has called for the documents from the Mandal Revenue Officer and the same were marked as Exs.C-1 to C-3. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, and the material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to the untoward incident of accidental fall from the passenger train and accordingly allowed the application filed by the applicants through the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Railways vehemently contended that the ticket was not marked and, therefore, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-applicants contended that the factum of seizure of the ticket with number has been noted in the inquest report by the police during the course of inquest and, therefore, from the recitals in Ex.C-2 inquest report, it is clear that the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel in a passenger train. 9. The son of the deceased was examined as AW.1. He is not an eye witness to the untoward incident. But, he filed Exs.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-1 is the copy of the F.I.R., which clearly shows that the deceased fell down from the train at Singarayakonda and died on the spot. Ex.A-2 Inquest Report would clearly go to show that the death of the deceased was caused due to the injuries sustained by him in a railway accident. The doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased also opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries and those injuries might be possible by falling from a train. The opinion as to the death of the deceased, as stated in Ex.A-3 postmortem report, remained unchallenged. So from the documentary evidence produced by the applicants, it is clear that the deceased while getting down from the train at Singarayakonda, accidentally fell down in between the platform and compartment and as a result, he was dragged to some distance. If the Railway administration wanted to prove that the death of the deceased has taken place in any one of the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for brevity “the Act”), the burden is on the Railways to establish the same. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the Railway administration to show that the death of the deceased falls under any one of the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the objective findings of the investigating officer during the course of holding inquest are admissible under law. The objective finding of noting down the number of the ticket, which was in the possession of the deceased at the time of inquest is, therefore, admissible under law. If that is taken into consideration, it can safely be said that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in a passenger train with a valid ticket. There is no contra evidence adduced by the Railway administration to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the Tribunal had rightly held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, who died in an untoward incident while travellilng in a passenger train and accordingly awarded the compensation to the applicants. 11. For the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 21.02.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.95 of 2003 21.02.2011 (Msr)