HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1186 OF 2008 DATED 24th JANUARY, 2012 BETWEEN Vulula Dalamma and ors …….Appellants and Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, S.C.Railway, Secunderabad. ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1186 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: The applicants in OAA.No. 88 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, filed this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987 aggrieved by the order dated 27.4.2001 dismissing their claim for compensation. The appellants/applicants stated in their claim application that the deceased V.Laxmaiah along with one A.Yelesu went to Vizianagaram on Court work and while they were returning back on the same day evening i.e. on 29.12.1997 travelled in II Class general compartment of Bokaro express with valid ticket from Vizianagaram to Parvathipuram Town Railway Station. It was stated that while A.Yelesu got down at Parvathipuram Railway Station, the deceased continued his journey to Parvathipuram Town Railway Station and while he was getting down at Parvathipuram Railway Station, he slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train due to the jerks of the train and sustained severe multiple injuries. He was immediately shifted to community hospital whereat he succumbed to injuries on 5.1.1998 while undergoing treatment. Hence, the claim application. The respondent-Railways filed written statement opposing the claim of the appellants/applicants. It was averred in the written statement that as the deceased fell down from a moving train, the same amounted to self inflicting injuries and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal, upon due consideration of the evidence on record, held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and as such the appellants/applicants are not entitled to receive compensation. Hence, the present appeal. Heard on either side. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the person who travelled along with the deceased was examined as AW.2 who categorically stated that they have purchased the valid journey ticket and travelled in the train and as such the deceased was a bona fide passenger. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record in the proper perspective and erroneously recorded a finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. He further submitted that though the deceased was succumbed to injuries in the hospital four days after the accident, the police had not booked the case against the deceased as a trespasser. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions of this Court and other High Courts in the cases of Dasari Laxmi Vs. Union of India (2004 ACJ 103), Vaishali Vs. Union of India (2011 ACJ 106), Union of India Vs.Leelamma (2010 ACJ 566), Union of India Vs. N.Ramachandra Reddy {2005 (2) ALD (NOC 110)}, K.V. Thomas Vs. Union of India (AIR 2008 Kerala 153), N.Buchilingam Vs,. Union of India (2004 (6) ALD 302), D.Srinivas Vs. Union of India (2000 ACJ 889) and Union of India Vs. Sanja Paswan ( 2005 ACJ 823). Perused the case file. It is not in dispute that the deceased travelled in Bokoro express on 29.12.1997. It is also not in dispute that the deceased fell down from the said train, sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to injuries on 5.1.1998 while undergoing treatment in the hospital. However, the fact remains that on witnessing the fall of the deceased from the train at Parvathipuram Town Railway Station, R.W.1 who was working as Parcel Clerk rushed to the incident and found the deceased with bleeding injuries. He stated that he did not find the journey ticket from the possession of the deceased. The Guard of the subject train, who gave a letter Ex.R.3 stating that he checked the pockets of the deceased and found no journey ticket from him. Further, the deceased while undergoing treatment in the hospital appeared to have not stated as to purchase of the ticket. Even there was no mention in the inquest report Ex.A.2 as to loss of the ticket. The version of the appellants that the deceased travelled along with said A.Yelesu after purchasing a valid journey ticket was thus disbelieved. In those circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Further it is to be seen from the claim application that the deceased slipped and fell down accidentally from the subject running train at about 1900 hours at Parvathipuram Town Railway Station due to jerks of the train. The said act of the deceased itself shows the negligence on his part, which falls under the exceptions adumbrated in Section 124 (A) (b) of the Act. However, there is no direct witness to the actual occurrence of the deceased falling from the moving train. The learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the several decisions referred to supra. I have gone through the same. There is no dispute with regard to the ratio decidendi in the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The fact however remains that none of the judgments relied on by him are applicable to the facts of the case on hand as the facts on the case on hand are quite different from the facts in those cases. These judgments were rendered in the back drop of the facts and circumstances therein which are not akin to the present case. Further, the appellants failed to prove the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the appeal warranting interference by this Court with the order under appeal. In the result, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------- ------------ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 24th January, 2012. Msnro