IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.285 of 2010. Date:11.10.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. ..Appellant And Smt V. Lakshmi Devi and another. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.285 of 2010. JUDGMENT:- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is directed against the order, dated 15.12.2009, in O.A.A.No.122 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-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death Vantala Chinna Narasimhulu (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident which took place on 26.2.2003, was allowed. 2. The applicant filed the O.A.A. stating that the dead body of the deceased was found near Gajjala Konda Markapur between Km.137/12/13 between 22 feet distance on 28.2.2003, that he fell down from Guntur Nandyal Passenger train No.406, sustained injuries all over the body and consequently died. 3. The appellant/Railways denied the case of the applicants and stated that the train No.406 leaves Guntur at 18.10 hours, but the ticket particulars given by the applicant referred to a ticket issued at 21.04 hours, about 3 hours later and also that the train would have passed through the accident spot at about 21.30 hours on 26.2.2003 and how could the body not be found till 11.00 hours of 28.2.2003 when so many trains would have passed by. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident? And 4. To what relief. 5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the application of the applicants. Challenging the same, the railways filed this appeal. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 7. Learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the ticket number as mentioned in the inquest report is not a valid ticket number and hence he prays to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the ticket number as mentioned in the inquest report is not shown to be an invalid ticket and that the deceased fell down from the train and that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the application filed by the applicants and he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied. The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants 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 passenger train with valid ticket. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. It is not in dispute before this Court that the deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling in a passenger train. It is also not in dispute that the deceased is having a valid ticket for travelling in a train carrying passengers. The police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased, and the dead body was also subjected to post-mortem examination. It is opined in the autopsy report by the Doctor that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the death of the deceased was due to an untoward incident is proved beyond all preponderance of probabilities. 11. The only contention of the appellant that during the course of the inquest, in the wearing apparel of the deceased the police found a ticket and the ticket number was mentioned in the inquest report. The objective finding of noticing a ticket with the deceased and the ticket number as mentioned in the inquest report is not shown to be an invalid or incorrect as the dead body was not noticed by anybody, and it is found after two days after the incident. Therefore, the post-mortem report would also clearly go to show that the death of the deceased might have taken place about 48 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. The evidence adduced by the railway administration would not go to show that the ticket found with the deceased is not a valid ticket to travel in a train carrying passengers. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the material available on record, rightly granted the compensation to the applicants and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Date:11.10.2011, Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.285 of 2010. Date:11.10.2011 Gk.