IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1217 OF 2009 Between : Union of India ... APPELLANT A N D Smt Sammeta Siva Parvathi and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1217 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 12.08.2009, in O.A.A.No.109 of 2005, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed by the respondents/applicants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Sammeta Venkatadri Reddy (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) was allowed granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- 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. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the respondent, and the respondents in the appeal are the applicants, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants filed claim application stating that on 05.04.2005 the deceased along with other labourers boarded train No.423 passenger in order to go from Jandrapeta to Bapatla. While they were travelling in the said train, the deceased had accidentally slipped and fell down at KM No.337/4-6 between Vetapalem and Chirala Railway Stations and died. Hence, the claim application. 4. The respondent/railways filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It is stated that as no ticket was found with the deceased, he cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger; that the Key man of Unit No.6 found one male dead body lying at KM No.337/4-6; that there is no eye witness to the incident; that there was no information about fall of any passenger from the train; that the deceased was not having any luggage, articles, money or ticket to prove that he was a passenger of a train carrying passengers; that as per the opinion of panchayatdars, the deceased might have fallen from an unknown train or knocked down by a train while crossing the track and therefore, the incident does not come within the meaning of Section 123 (c ) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) and hence, it prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: “1. Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.423 passenger travelling from Jandrapeta to Bapatla on 05.04.2005? 3. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 4. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the applicants, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were got marked. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim application holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers and his fall from the train in an untoward incident. Challenging the same, the railways filed the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/railways contended that the applicants have not produced the ticket to show that the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket that therefore, the applicants are not entitled to compensation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that A.W.2 was examined to speak about the deceased purchasing the ticket and therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper. 11. For the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two requirements have to be satisfied, firstly, there must be 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 two requirements are proved, then the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the Railways want to resist the claim, it has to prove that no untoward incident had happened or 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. 12. With regard to an untoward incident, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The dead body of the deceased was found lying by the side of the railway track. The Key man of the railways noticed the same and sent a message to the Station Superintendent, who in turn informed to police. Police registered a case under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased after securing mediators and thereafter the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries. Even the railway administration is also not seriously denying or disputing about the death of the deceased in an untoward incident. 13. Coming to the second aspect whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers or not, no doubt, the applicants have not produced any ticket to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. But at the same time, they examined A.W.2 who is a coolie, travelled along with the deceased on the date of incident. A.W.2 stated that he went to railway station and at that point of time, he saw the deceased purchasing the ticket to travel from Jandrapeta to Bapatla. If the evidence of A.W.2 is found in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no legal bar in accepting the same. The presence of A.W.2 at the relevant point of time of deceased purchasing the ticket is not specifically denied or disputed in the cross- examination. Once the evidence of A.W.2 is true, correct and trustworthy, there is no legal bar for placing an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. Perhaps there is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2. Even after cross-examination of A.W.2, nothing has been elicited so as to doubt the testimony of A.W.2. That is the reason why the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.2. From the evidence, it is clear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a train carrying passengers with a valid ticket. Once two requirements under Section 124-A of the Act are established, it is need less to observe that the applicants are entitled to compensation. If the railway administration wants to resist the claim, it can plead and establish that its case falls under any of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Admittedly, the facts of the present case do not fall under any one of the exceptions as provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 YVL