THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.794 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Appellants- applicants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order, dated 17-04-2009 in O.A.A No.212 of 2003 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent upon the death of Medapati Maheswara Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident was dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that on 27-05-2003 the deceased, aged about 14 years accompanied by his uncle N.Venkat Reddy, came to Visakhapatnam Railway Station, that his uncle purchased a general ticket to Samarlakota and gave it to the deceased who boarded train No.7240 Simhadri express and when the deceased was travelling in the train, he accidentally fell down at Anakapalli Railway Station, sustained injuries and died on the spot. A bag containing the ticket, Video Camera and clothes were lost in the accident. Hence, the claim application filed by the parents and minor sister of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. The Railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and stated that there was no journey ticket and hence, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, that the guard had informed the Dy.S.S. Anakapalli that as the train was rolling into Anakapalli Railway Station, an 18 year old person was found getting from the train from a compartment and seriously injured and both legs were cut and hence, the deceased committed self inflicted injury. The applicants were put to strict proof that the person who died in the incident was the same person for whose death the applicants claimed compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the applicants. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 6. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be an untoward incident whereunder a person died. Untoward incident includes a person falling from the running train accidentally. Secondly, a person who died or sustained injuries must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. If these requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it is has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not disputed by the Railway Administration, that if the evidence of A.W.2 is accepted, it is clear that the deceased purchased a ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers from Visakhapatnam to Samarlakota, that as two requirements are proved, the applicants are entitled to compensation. 8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the Railways contended that the identity of the dead body of the deceased is not established, that the police did not find any ticket when they held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, that after recording reasons, the evidence of A.W.2 was disbelieved by the Tribunal, that if the evidence of A.W.2 is eschewed from consideration, there is no other evidence to show that the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket, that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the claim application and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. The death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not in dispute. The dead body of the deceased was lying by the side of the track. The Deputy Station Superintendent informed about the death of the deceased to police. Thereafter, police registered a case and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. After inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries all over the body. Even the Railway Administration is not seriously denying or disputing about the death of the deceased in an untoward incident. 10. Now, it has to be seen whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. 11. No doubt, the applicants did not produce any ticket to show that the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers. Similarly, police did not seize any ticket during the course of inquest, but at the same time, the evidence of A.W.2 is very clear that the deceased purchased ticket at Visakhapatnam and boarded train to go to Samarlakota. No reasons were assigned by the Tribunal for disbelieving the evidence of A.W.2. If the evidence of A.W.2 is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no legal bar to accept his evidence. 12. It is in the evidence of A.W.2 that his nephew M.Maheswara Reddy came to his house at Visakhapatnam for spending holidays on 27-05-2003. Thereafter, he took him to Visakhapatnam Railway Station and he purchased a general ticket for train No.7240-Simhadri Express from Visakhapatnam to Samarlakota and gave it to the deceased. The deceased kept the ticket in his bag and boarded the train in his presence. He left the Railway Station after the train started. Except giving a suggestion that he did not go to the Railway Station along with the deceased, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. Simply because he is a close relative of the deceased, that does not mean his evidence has to be disbelieved on that ground. When the deceased boy aged about 16 or 18 years went to the house of A.W.2 for spending holidays, there is every possibility for A.W.2 to accompany him to the Railway Station and purchasing a ticket for the deceased to travel in a train carrying passengers. Therefore, in the absence of improbability in the evidence of A.W.2, his evidence can be put in the category of wholly reliable. The Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the evidence of A.W.2 who purchased a ticket and gave it to the deceased. 13. Insofar as dependency of the applicants is concerned, the Tribunal gave a categorical finding that the applicants are the dependents of the deceased. Once two requirements are satisfied beyond preponderance of probability, then the applicants are entitled for compensation. 14. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that due to own negligence of the deceased in getting down from the running train, the incident had happened. The defence of negligence on the part of the deceased resulting in his death is not available to the Railway Administration since Section 124-A of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability. The defences available to the Railway Administration are enumerated under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. No evidence was adduced by the Railway Administration to show that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicants with interest at 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realization. Out of compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- each and applicant No.3 is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 19-10-2011 Hsd