THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No. 1224 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal, at the instance of the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, is directed against the order dated 04-08-2009 in O.A.A.No.247 of 2004, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 10-09-2004, the deceased-B.Hari Prasad purchased a II Class train journey ticket and boarded the train at Eluru in general compartment to go to Chirala, and soon after it moved, due to jerks of the running train, he was dragged by the train to a distance of 15 sleepers and died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, the claimants have filed this application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the Act’) to grant compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the accidental death of the deceased attributing it as an untoward incident. 3. The respondent-railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application. It is stated that as per the report of the Deputy Station Superintendent, Eluru, there is no eye witness to the incident and that the inquest report was prepared based on presumptions and assumptions. Hence, the railways have no liability to pay any compensation at all. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the Applicants are the dependents of the deceased B.Hari Prasad? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7488 Tirumala Express, traveling from Eluru to Chirala on 10-09-2004? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an accidental fall from the train as alleged? 4. To what relief? 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the application awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs directing the railways to pay the same immediately with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-railways have filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- railways and the learned counsel for the respondents-applicants and perused the record. 7. Learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the presence of A.W.2 is doubtful and therefore, there is no other evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling as a passenger in a train carrying passengers and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that from the evidence of A.W.2, who is a porter, it is clear that he booked the consignment and he saw the deceased purchasing the ticket from Eluru to Chirala and therefore, it is nothing unusual for A.W.2 to give a false evidence and prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, 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 traveling in the passenger train with valid ticket. Untoward incident includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. If these two requirements are proved by applicants, then they are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the same, it must show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger or the death of the deceased is not in an untoward incident or that its case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident which was noticed by the key man who sent a message to the concerned railway Superintendent. The police after registration of the case, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and the inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the multiple injuries all over the body. Thereafter, the dead boy was subjected to postmortem examination. The doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased found several injuries on the body and opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries sustained as a result of shock and hemorrhage. Even railway administration is not denying or disputing about the death of the deceased in untoward incident. 11. Now the question to be considered is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers? 12. No doubt the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a passenger, but they have examined A.W.2, who categorically stated that he loaded two boxes into the SLR of Visakhapatnam-Tirupathi Express on 11-09-2004 which contain the cigarettes. The loading was over by 4.30 p.m. Later the gentleman, who booked the consignments, told that he did not purchase the ticket. Thus, he went to the booking counter and A.W.2 saw the deceased purchasing the ticket from Eluru To Chirala. Except giving suggestion that the deceased has not purchased the ticket, nothing was elicited in the cross examination of A.W.2 to disbelieve his evidence. He is the porter working in the railway station at Visakhapatnam. The fact that he loaded the consignment in the train is not denied or disputed. The fact that he along with the deceased went to the booking counter is also not denied or disputed. Having booked the consignment and paid the amount for the luggage, there is an every scope or possibility for the deceased to purchase ticket thereafter. Practically, the evidence of A.W.2 remains unchallenged. There is no other reason to doubt the testimony of A.W.2. His evidence leaves have no room to suspect or doubt that the deceased purchased a ticket. He is totally an independent witness and his presence at the railway station and loading of the cigarette packets in train at the relevant point of time is established beyond preponderance of probability. When he loaded a consignment in the train, there is every possibility for him to accompany the deceased to the ticket counter so that the expenses for loading would be paid by him. That is the reason why the Tribunal rightly placed on implicit reliance on A.W.2 while arriving at the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in the train carrying passengers. 13. There are no compelling reasons to doubt the testimony of A.W.2. If the evidence of A.W.2 is accepted as true and correct, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling in a train carrying passengers. 14. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ 29th September 2011 kvr